wrong question (maybe?)

Posted Apr 3, 2014 1:41 UTC (Thu) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359)
In reply to: wrong question (maybe?) by louie
Parent article: The most powerful contributor agreement

I see an important part of the DCO as providing plausible deniability.

If a legal question is raised over some code, we can identify who submitted it, point at the s-o-b, and say "we had good reason to believe we had been given the right to use this code".

There is always the chance that the s-o-b was faked, but if we can show a history of practice of requesting s-o-b when it isn't given, that improves our plausible deniability.

ambiguous, but amusing

Posted Apr 3, 2014 1:45 UTC (Thu) by jake (editor, #205) [Link]

> point at the s-o-b

there's another definition for that, which makes this rather amusing :)

thanks for the chuckle, Neil ...

jake

wrong question (maybe?)

Posted Apr 3, 2014 13:25 UTC (Thu) by fuhchee (guest, #40059) [Link]

"I see an important part of the DCO as providing plausible deniability."

That may be the only part. LKML doesn't have anything to legally identify the author, nor anything even as deep as a click-through to make it likely that the author even read/understood the DCO text (instead of cargo-culting the s-o-b line).