Slashdot Mirror
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"
Software methodology comes to open source.... Mind as well can the project now.....
Hmm, did the toothfairy whisper this in his ear last night?
"Honey, I feel a certain distance between us..." "Really? A 31ms ping ain't that bad..."
I wonder how this will affect the speed of the development process.
The name is kind of ironic, yes? You say DCO, I say SCO, let's call the whole thing off.
Reminds me of a documentary called "Why Planes Fall" which shows how planes are built. Each part, component and the tool used is logged to a person who created/assembled it. The system logs the tester/auditors which sign off on the work. It's amazing!
The only think I see different from this Linux process is that whoever created the code is not liable for anything that happens when you use the operating system. I see the 'auditors' of the Linux process are those that signoff on the code that are written by authorised contributors. There is no 'finger pointing' as so to speak when something goes wrong.
I keep saying this, and I am so surprised this is not broguht up more often, but if folks donate code to the project, are they not liable rather than the users of the project? I know I am talking about SCO, yes, it just seems so silly that anyone takes them seriously. Maybe this is a terrible metaphor, as I am only just starting to intake the coffee... but I sometimes thnk of this as if I gave someone a book, but inside the book there was tickets to a show. Then after giving the book I say to the person, by the way, I did not realize my tickets were there, can you pay up please? Sorry to rant, now back to the grindstone...
photoplankton
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 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.
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
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.
Although I'm not an expert in law (and certainly not US law since I live in the EU with different laws regarding to this), my gut feeling says I would never, never, nerver ever sign a document like that even if my work would be 100% original and not copied.
...) for any damages. Since most of the programmers probably do not have their assets split between their personal property and some form of 'company property' this might get dangerous. Please excuse me for not knowing the correct legal terms for 'private property' and property as part of an "inc." or "ltd.".
Just the mere fact that you sign a document that proves you wrote part of the Linux code, makes you liable for litigation. If any company thinks its rights are violated by a Linux component they can easily sue the contributors of this (and more) components personally. Given the track record of US litigation, I would never sign it.
Signing the document means that the author of the code will have to seek expenive legal support in case a lawsuit is started. Even if he can prove in court the code is original and written by himself, the bill for legal advice can be quite substanstial. If an author programmed in his spare time, this means he personally is liable... personally as in 'with your own personal assets'...
As an employee of a software firm (or worker at any other firm), your work is done "acting as a part of the company". Hence the company itself and not the individual employee is (financially) responsible for his/her mistakes. In case of litigation the company will have to seek legal council and incurr the damages. In my country the company could try to sue the employee for the incurred damages afterwards, but it will have to prove very extensively that the employee made very serious professional errors. And even then, companies rarely do so.
But a private author is personally responsible with his own assets (wage, house, car,