Seeking input from developers: glibc copyright assignment policy.

[DJ Delorie]

Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu> writes:
> On 6/15/21 12:12 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
>> A future glibc could distribute under the terms of LGPL4+, but a
>> future glibc could NOT change the license to "LGPL4+".
>
> So, are you saying that in string/strcpy.c we could not change the "2.1" 
> to 3 in the following comment:

Only of all the copyright owners of that file agreed.  That is, the FSF
plus any DCO'd patches' owners.

> If true, it's a significant argument against going with DCO'ed code. 

Yes, that is a key thing here.  Whether that's a pro or a con is up to
you.

pro: A future EvilFSF can't make the code non-free.

con: Bugs in GPL can't be fixed.