On 03 Sep 2021 12:37, Florian Weimer via Libc-alpha wrote:
> The localedata files currently contain this:
> 
> % This file is part of the GNU C Library and contains locale data.
> % The Free Software Foundation does not claim any copyright interest
> % in the locale data contained in this file.  The foregoing does not
> % affect the license of the GNU C Library as a whole.  It does not
> % exempt you from the conditions of the license if your use would
> % otherwise be governed by that license.
> 
> I think the wording is less than satisfying because it's unclear whether
> the patch submitter (or someone else) retains any copyright claims to
> the file.  With localedata patches submitted under the DCO, this becomes
> even more confusing.
> 
> Therefore, I proposed to
> 
> comment_char %
> escape_char /
> 
> % Copyright The GNU Toolchain Authors.
> % This file is part of the GNU C Library.
> % 
> % 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.
> % 
> % The GNU C Library is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> % but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> % MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU
> % Lesser General Public License for more details.
> % 
> % You should have received a copy of the GNU Lesser General Public
> % License along with the GNU C Library; if not, see
> % <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
> 
> 
> The main reason is to keep the contribution process simple.  For
> example, we do not need to argue with the submitter whether they
> actually can disclaim copyright or database protection rights.
> 
> Since the FSF disclaims copyright, we can also apply this header to
> mixed FSF/DCO files once the need arises.

imo this is going in the wrong direction

if we want to enforce it, we can add a test to check the header of the file.
if a contributor doesn't agree, then we don't accept their patch.  i don't
see why we need to bend over backwards for this.
-mike