Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > Randall S. Becker wrote: >> On December 24, 2020 12:19 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote: >> > We can narrow down the part I'm talking about: >> > >> > d. I *agree* that a record of the contribution is maintained >> > indefinitely. >> > >> > I don't agree with that. >> >> Clause d is important to maintain compatibility with GRPD[1] rules >> about maintaining identifying information. This clause is more than >> about the contribution. It is about consent to maintain your name and >> email on record indefinitely, as part of the contribution, in the git >> repository, without the ability to rescind the permission at some >> point in the future. > > I didn't mean I don't agree that clause (d) should be there. > > I mean if in a particular contribution I don't agree that a record of > the contribution is maintained indefinitely with my name, then clause > (d) is not met. And it is not actually my true contribution, but a > bastardization of it made by somebody else. > > You shouldn't assign to my name changes I don't agree with in > perpetuity. The way I read our DCO, especially its part (b), is that it is very much designed to allow editing, tweaking and improving on others' patches with editor's sign-off while passing a patch around.
