Re: Seeking input from developers: glibc copyright assignment policy.

[Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>]

On 6/15/21 12:12 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
> A future glibc could distribute under the terms of LGPL4+, but a
> future glibc could NOT change the license to "LGPL4+".

So, are you saying that in string/strcpy.c we could not change the "2.1" 
to 3 in the following comment:

    The GNU C Library is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
    modify it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public
    License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either
    version 2.1 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

and redistribute the result, assuming strcpy.c has some DCO'ed code? 
We've routinely been doing such replacements for years in other Gnu 
code. Gnulib even automates the practice.

If true, it's a significant argument against going with DCO'ed code. 
Certainly we couldn't accept DCO'ed material in any Glibc code shared 
with Gnulib, as Gnulib code is shared among many GNU projects that don't 
do DCO and do such rewriting. And even if we ignore Gnulib, this could 
be a real problem if copyright law were to change in a way that 
adversely affects free-software principles, so that we'd really need an 
LGPL 4.

Have the Red Hat lawyers looked into this issue specifically?