Hi Jason, On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 05:13:30PM +0100, Jason Merrill wrote: > My take has been that this change is not necessary for us because > the FSF can accept copyright assignment for pseudonymous > contributions, so individual reviewers don't need to adjudicate > whether a particular pseudonym is sufficiently "known".
A partially agree. But I still think we need to clarify what is meant by "real name", "known identity" or "(anonymous) pseudonym". The problem with the term "real name" is that it is sometimes associated with "legal name" which depends on tricky interpretation of local jurisdiction. People might have been called Jeffery by their parents and the state, but now go by Jeff. People might have adopted their spouse last name, or use both now. Or they (want to get) divorced and revert to a previous name. People might be in transition. Or simply decide to go by just their initials BA. If that is how they identify themselves publicly and that is what they feel is their "real name" then I think we can call that a "known identity" and feel confident they can certify the conditions of the DCO in place for the project. Where it get tricky is if they use an (anonymous) pseudonym/identity just for contributing to the project. They might not want anybody to know how/what they contribute to other projects. They might use a (throwaway) email addess different from their normal email address because the organization or company they work for doesn't want it to be publicly known they contribute to the project (and whether they have been given a corporate disclaimer). In that case they cannot really certify the conditions of the DCO and might have to go through the FSF process to clarify things. It would be good to be explicit about the different usages of "pseudonyms" and which processes have to be followed. Cheers, Mark
