Linus Adopts Enhanced Tracking Process

millette writes ""Under the enhanced kernel submission process, contributions to the Linux kernel may only be made by individuals who acknowledge their right to make the contribution under an appropriate open source license. The acknowledgement, called the DCO, tracks contributions and contributors. The DCO ensures that appropriate attribution is given to developers of original contributions and derivative works, as well to those contributors who receive submissions and pass them, unchanged, up the kernel tree. All contributors are called upon to "sign off" on a submission before it may be considered for inclusion in the kernel." From the press release. Also seen in the New York Times"

Comments

Speed vs. SCO-secure

[tfbastard]

I wonder how this will affect the speed of the development process.

"R.I.P.: The Counterculture Aura of Linux"

[Anonymous Coward]

NYT comes out of nowhere with this idiotic, inflammatory headline. It's disheartening that mainstream technology journalists are still attributing anarchy, punk rock and anti-establishment to Open Source.

DCO is a wonderful idea. Steve Lohr, on the other hand, needs to get his head out of his ass.

What this is not about

[The Pim]

1. This is not about a chain of trust. Nobody is expected to verify the identity or trustworthiness of anyone else.
2. This is not about preventing unauthorized submissions. There is no process for checking the provenance of code.
3. This is not about marketing. I'm sure Linus doesn't care if this helps some manager sleep at night.

What is it about? It's about putting information that was already mostly available (by scrounging in mail archives) in a structured form. So that the next SCO doesn't waste so much developer time, and (as a bonus) so that Linus can figure out which maintainer sent some code when debugging.

Re:Like building a plane

[femto]

> ...whoever created the code is not liable...

Is this something that will change? With improved contribution tracking, will the next SCO/liability/whatever suit be directed against individual developers?

What if someone uses Linux in a 'mission critial' situation and it fails due to a bug? The bug is then traced back to an individual developer who is sued. There are countries where 'denial of liability' is a weak defence. Can the fact that a developer didn't get paid, so there was no transaction between teh developer and user act as a defence?

Just playing devils advocate.

Not "attribution", but ACCOUNTABILITY.

[mumblestheclown]

First, it's pretty sad when the NYT scoops slashdot on a major piece of linux news like this.

But, more importantly, you have to realize--this has nothing to do with giving (positive) "props" to the kernel authors and everything to do with identifying sources of blame when it all goes to hell.

Forget whether or not you like software patents for a moment; the fact is that right now they exist. Previously, you could in theory contribute some patented or even copyrighted (direct copied) source into the kernel and it might go unnnoticed for years. Now, the theory goes, once the infringing bit is noticed, IBM or Autozone can't be sued as easily anymore--rather, what they will do is say "no, look - this piece of code came from monkeyboy332, a programmer in serbia".. sue him instead!

In short, this is a nice way for large companies attempting to wash their hands of responsibility for a linux kernel that they arguably have access to because it's open. In simpler terms still, this is corporate welfare by linus to try to win wider adoption of linux. It's not a bad strategy, but accept it for what it is.

It has nothing to do whatsoever with giving authors "credit." That is already well handled by other mechanisms.