Seeking input from developers: glibc copyright assignment policy.

[Siddhesh Poyarekar]

On 6/25/21 11:56 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> I don't follow.  You said:
> 
>> (2) contributors who prefer to retain ownership of their content for
>> various reasons
> 
> I'm showing text from the assignment agreement that IMO clearly says
> the developer retains all the rights.  IOW, as long as the developer
> doesn't prevent the FSF from using the changes as they see fit, the
> developer can do anything with the changes, including distributing
> them under any license the developer wants.  Why doesn't this satisfy
> your point (2)?

Sorry I should have been clearer, I meant to say that an assignment with 
a grant back implies a shared ownership, which is different from wanting 
exclusive ownership.  It's perfectly reasonable for someone to be picky 
about who they share ownership with.

>> It still needs trust in the organization to represent my values.
> 
> I think this is (3), not (2).
> 
> And I don't really understand what values are being alluded to here.
> The FSF is an organization whose only purpose is supporting and
> promoting Free Software; as such, the only relevant values (or should
> I say "value", singular) is the support and promotion of Free
> Software.  Anything else is not relevant to the FSF and our relations
> with it, and can only be some private values or views of some FSF
> members.  What does this have to do with the copyright assignment for
> a contribution to a GNU project such as glibc?

That's for me to decide, no?  :)  Different people take a different view 
of the kinds of values they would attach to an engagement and it may 
differ with the nature of engagement.

> The DCO text practically tells the developer not to worry about "this
> nonsense", and just say things "to the best of his/her knowledge".  It
> doesn't even explain the purpose of the declarations in the DCO and
> how they will be used by the project.  For example, the crucial
> importance of the information veracity for a possible future
> litigation is never mentioned.  So even if the developer wants to
> DTRT, they won't know what is and isn't important in their
> declaration, and thus will not be able to make sure the important
> information is verified and correct.

I don't think that difference matters in practice, definitely not enough 
to create an elaborate mechanism that is similarly leaky.

 > Oh, and talking about dishonest contributors is not useful.  I'm
 > talking about the honest ones.  If someone wants to lie about the

Agreed, I mentioned that case only for completeness.

Siddhesh