Re: PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent License

[Leif Lindholm <leif.lindholm@linaro.org>]

A starting proposal for my end would be:

---
In order to keep track of who did what, all patches contributed need
to include a statement that to the best of the contributor's
knowledge they have the right to contribute it under the specified
license.

The test for this is as specified in the [Developer's Certificate of
Origin (DCO) 1.1](https://developercertificate.org/). The contributor
certifies compliance by adding a line saying

  Signed-off-by: Developer Name <developer@example.org>

where "Developer Name" is the contributor's real name, and the email
address is one the developer is reachable through at the time of
contributing.
---

We could also do what Linux does and include the DCO v1.1 verbatim in
the Readme.md instead of using the link.

Best Regards,

Leif

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 07:09:41PM +0000, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
> Leif and Jordan,
> 
> Would you mind putting together a specific proposal
> and perhaps some links to other projects that use
> the same approach?
> 
> I am happy to update the RFC to V3 to address this 
> topic if we can close on it quickly.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mike
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Leif Lindholm [mailto:leif.lindholm@linaro.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 10:59 AM
> > To: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>
> > Cc: Justen, Jordan L <jordan.l.justen@intel.com>; edk2-
> > devel@lists.01.org
> > Subject: Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to BSD+Patent
> > License
> > 
> > Hi Mike,
> > 
> > I see where Jordan is coming from here.
> > 
> > It isn't just about losing the comment in
> > Contriutions.txt - there are
> > bits in the actual TianoCore Contribution Agreement that
> > cover the
> > same things as https://developercertificate.org/ (that
> > are not
> > explicitly called out elsewhere in the existing
> > Contributions.txt).
> > 
> > Like Jordan says, we wouldn't be the first project that
> > use
> > Signed-off-by without specifying exactly what it means,
> > but I think
> > we're one of the ones that actually care quite a bit.
> > 
> > I could live with us not resolving this at the same time
> > as the
> > license change, but I would prefer if we did...
> > 
> > Best Regards,
> > 
> > Leif
> > 
> > On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 06:25:54PM +0000, Kinney, Michael
> > D wrote:
> > > Hi Jordan,
> > >
> > > No proposed changes to the Signed-off-by tags.  If you
> > have
> > > a proposal, please provide an RFC or bring to the
> > monthly
> > > EDK II community meeting.
> > >
> > > This series is focused on the license change, the use
> > of SPDX
> > > identifiers, and removing the Contributed-under tag
> > from
> > > commit messages.
> > >
> > > I will update the V2 version of the patch series in to
> > make
> > > sure the content from Contributions.txt that is not
> > part of
> > > the TianoCore Contribution Agreement is added to
> > Readme.md.
> > >
> > > The RFC mentioned the need to update documentation.  I
> > will
> > > send that out as a separate Wiki patch series for
> > review.
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Justen, Jordan L
> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2019 11:04 AM
> > > > To: Kinney, Michael D <michael.d.kinney@intel.com>;
> > > > edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [edk2] PATCH] Change EDK II to
> > BSD+Patent
> > > > License
> > > >
> > > > On 2019-03-13 10:54:22, Kinney, Michael D wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 84141eacac edk2: Remove Contributions.txt and
> > update
> > > > Readme.md
> > > >
> > > > I guess this removes the requirement for the
> > > > 'Contributed-under' tag
> > > > in commit messages?
> > > >
> > > > But, what about Signed-off-by? Is it desirable to
> > > > remove that
> > > > requirement?
> > > >
> > > > Relatedly, some open source projects have
> > standardized
> > > > on tying the
> > > > Signed-off-by to this text:
> > > >
> > > > https://developercertificate.org/
> > > >
> > > > So, the contributor doesn't have to agree to give the
> > > > project the
> > > > contribution under the Contributed-under terms, but
> > > > they still
> > > > indicate that they believe that the project can use
> > the
> > > > code under the
> > > > project's indicated license.
> > > >
> > > > There is also other information in Contributions.txt
> > > > that appears to
> > > > have been deleted, rather than moved. I guess it is
> > > > mostly duplicated
> > > > on the wiki. That doesn't mean it's not a good idea
> > to
> > > > duplicate it in
> > > > the source tree, or at least provide a web-link. It
> > > > seems like the
> > > > first place devs might look for such information is
> > > > either the readme,
> > > > or Contributions.txt.
> > > >
> > > > Regarding the wiki, I guess it has to be updated
> > after
> > > > this change is
> > > > made. It might be good to add that to the bug so it
> > > > can't be closed
> > > > until that is fixed.
> > > >
> > > > How about updating BaseTools/Scripts/PatchCheck.py?
> > > >
> > > > -Jordan
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > edk2-devel mailing list
> > > edk2-devel@lists.01.org
> > > https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/edk2-devel