DCO or Copyright Assignment? Why not both...

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 22/01/19 9:18 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> In glibc I expect that unofficially all of our process is equivalent to
> a DCO *plus* copyright assignment, but we don't verbalize our DCO that way.
>   
> The reason I prefer DCO is that it's easier to explain:
>   
> * DCO + copyright assignment.
>   
> Than to explain something entirely new. A lot of other communities are simply
> adopting the kernel DCO because it's well known, and there is a lot of value
> in that.

Yeah that's basically what I meant to suggest but I'm not a 100% sure it
is unambiguous.

> My opinion is that a Co-authored-by: should be equivalent to multiple
> Signed-off-by: lines e.g. treat Co-authored-by: as an alias to Signed-off-by:,
> but those projects not wishing to use the implied DCO can use Co-authroed-by.
>   
> We should probably move this off this thread.

Done, subject line changed.

Siddhesh