[Mesa-dev] [PATCH] docs: Document and *require* usage of Signed-off-by

[Erik Faye-Lund]

On Wed, 2018-11-28 at 01:18 -0800, Jordan Justen wrote:
> On 2018-11-28 00:47:25, Erik Faye-Lund wrote:
> > On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 23:20 -0800, Jordan Justen wrote:
> > > This adds the "Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1" from the
> > > Linux
> > > kernel. It indicates that by using Signed-off-by you are
> > > certifying
> > > that your patch meets the DCO 1.1 guidelines.
> > > 
> > > It also changes Signed-off-by from being optional to being
> > > required.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jordan Justen <jordan.l.justen at intel.com>
> > > Cc: Matt Turner <mattst88 at gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > >  docs/submittingpatches.html | 52
> > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > >  1 file changed, 51 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/docs/submittingpatches.html
> > > b/docs/submittingpatches.html
> > > index 9ae750d5a15..6d506b3691b 100644
> > > --- a/docs/submittingpatches.html
> > > +++ b/docs/submittingpatches.html
> > > @@ -20,6 +20,8 @@
> > >  <ul>
> > >  <li><a href="#guidelines">Basic guidelines</a>
> > >  <li><a href="#formatting">Patch formatting</a>
> > > +<li><a href="#signing">Patch Signing</a> (Signed-off-by,
> > > Developer's
> > > +                                          Certificate of Origin)
> > >  <li><a href="#testing">Testing Patches</a>
> > >  <li><a href="#mailing">Mailing Patches</a>
> > >  <li><a href="#reviewing">Reviewing Patches</a>
> > > @@ -73,7 +75,9 @@ if needed.  For example:
> > >      is necessary, and removing it causes no regressions in
> > > piglit on
> > > any
> > >      platform.
> > >  </pre>
> > > -<li>A "Signed-off-by:" line is not required, but not discouraged
> > > either.
> > > +<li>A "Signed-off-by:" line is <strong>required</strong>. The
> > > format
> > > +and meaning of Signed-off-by is documented below in
> > > +the <a href="#signing">patch signing</a> section.
> > >  <li>If a patch addresses a bugzilla issue, that should be noted
> > > in
> > > the
> > >  patch comment.  For example:
> > >  <pre>
> > > @@ -129,7 +133,53 @@ Please use common sense and do
> > > <strong>not</strong> blindly add everyone.
> > >  </pre>
> > >  </ul>
> > >  
> > > +<h2 id="signing">
> > > +  Patch Signing (Signed-off-by, Developer's Certificate of
> > > Origin)
> > > +</h2>
> > >  
> > > +<p>
> > > +  As described in the <a href="#formatting">patch formatting</a>
> > > +  section, you must sign your patch by including Signed-off-by
> > > in
> > > the
> > > +  patch commit message. The Signed-off-by must include your real
> > > name
> > > +  and email address in this format:
> > > +</p>
> > > +<pre>
> > > +  Signed-off-by: Joe Hacker <jhacker at foo.com>
> > > +</pre>
> > > +<p>
> > > +  By adding Signed-of-by to your contributed patch, you certify
> > > that
> > > +  your contribution meets the guidelines of the Developer's
> > > +  Certificate of Origin:
> > > +</p>
> > > +
> > > +<pre>
> > > +Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
> > > +-------------------------------------
> > > +
> > > +By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:
> > > +
> > > + (a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and
> > > I
> > > +     have the right to submit it under the open source license
> > > +     indicated in the file; or
> > > +
> > > + (b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the
> > > best
> > > +     of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open
> > > source
> > > +     license and I have the right under that license to submit
> > > that
> > > +     work with modifications, whether created in whole or in
> > > part
> > > +     by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
> > > +     permitted to submit under a different license), as
> > > indicated
> > > +     in the file; or
> > > +
> > > + (c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
> > > +     person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not
> > > modified
> > > +     it.
> > > +
> > > + (d) I understand and agree that this project and the
> > > contribution
> > > +     are public and that a record of the contribution (including
> > > all
> > > +     personal information I submit with it, including my sign-
> > > off)
> > > is
> > > +     maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent
> > > with
> > > +     this project or the open source license(s) involved.
> > > +</pre>
> > 
> > I don't think you can legally copy parts for this file, but not all
> > of
> > it, due to this text (from here: https://developercertificate.org/)
> > 
> > "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of
> > this
> > license document, but changing it is not allowed."
> > 
> > Removing that text (and the copyright statement above it), is
> > changing
> > it.
> 
> It came from the kernel Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst,
> which doesn't have that specific text about "verbatim copies". I
> guess
> you prefer we copy it from https://developercertificate.org/?
> 

I just assumed it came from developercertificate.org. In the Kernel
case, I suppose thatt since The Linux Foundation "controls" that
project, this is not a worry for them. But I don't really know. Seems
best to stick with the verbatim version from 
https://developercertificate.org/ IMO.

> > I would propose you add it as a separate file and link that, to
> > avoid
> > confusion about what "this license document" refers to.
> 
> I do see that Eclipse had it on a page with other content. Although,
> the main focus of the page is the DCO.
> https://www.eclipse.org/legal/DCO.php

I think putting it in a pre-tag sufficiently separates the document as
well. So it's your choise IMO.

> It doesn't look like https://developercertificate.org/ has a filename
> associated with the content. So, something like docs/dco.txt or
> docs/developer-certificate-of-origin.txt?
> 

Either of those looks fine to me as well.