Junio C Hamano wrote: > Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >> >> But if you are arguing that when you write "Signed-off-by:" your > >> >> sign-off can mean something other than what DCO says it means, > >> > > >> > The DCO has clause (d), which clearly states the developer must agree > >> > that a record of his/her contribution is maintained indefinitely (and > >> > that includes his/her sign off). > >> > >> Yes. Are you saying that you are OK with (a)-(c) but not (d)? > > > > I'm saying if the author of the patch states "I don't agree with a > > record of my contribution being maintained indefinitely with my sign > > off", then clause (d) isn't met. > > Yeah, but then why does such an author add Signed-off-by: trailer to > begin with? Why an author does anything is not something even the greatest psychologist of all time would know with 100% certainty, unless he/she reads minds, which nobody can do. All we know is what the author does. > So, "by making a contribution", the author who added a Signed-off-by > trailer is certifying that (a|b|c)&d is true. Yes, (d) is a requirement. But agreeing (d) applies for patch A is not agreeing that it applies for patch B. Apples are not oranges. > Perhaps we can tighten the language to say "If (and only if) you can > certify" and that may reduce confusion? Clause (d) still must apply. -- Felipe Contreras
