> Of course, we couldn't accept PRs from them because they don't follow DCO[1] i.e., DCO requires that the committer MUST NOT be an organization.
I read the certificate. It isn't long:
Developer Certificate of Origin
Version 1.1
Copyright (C) 2004, 2006 The Linux Foundation and its contributors.
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this
license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Developer's Certificate of Origin 1.1
By making a contribution to this project, I certify that:
(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I
have the right to submit it under the open source license
indicated in the file; or
(b) The contribution is based upon previous work that, to the best
of my knowledge, is covered under an appropriate open source
license and I have the right under that license to submit that
work with modifications, whether created in whole or in part
by me, under the same open source license (unless I am
permitted to submit under a different license), as indicated
in the file; or
(c) The contribution was provided directly to me by some other
person who certified (a), (b) or (c) and I have not modified
it.
(d) I understand and agree that this project and the contribution
are public and that a record of the contribution (including all
personal information I submit with it, including my sign-off) is
maintained indefinitely and may be redistributed consistent with
this project or the open source license(s) involved.
Where does this require that the submitter not be an organization? Even if you're fully committed to that idea, the obvious approach would appear to be:
(1) GitStart releases their patch under the open source license of the project's choice.
(2) An employee of GitStart submits it, in their official capacity, to the project, asserting under clause (b) that the contribution is based on (consists entirely of) previous work that is covered under an appropriate license.
That's a weird document. It seems that it actually wants the submitter to certify that either A & B are true, or C is, and that D is acceptable. But it lists them like you must accept all 4, but all A & C can't both be true at the same time.
Yes, it's malformed. There is no expectation that (a) and (c) can be simultaneously satisfied, since they are linked by a chain of "or"s. But it seems clear that the intent of the document is that you're supposed to certify two things:
I. At least one of (a), (b), (c) is true.
II. I understand and agree as specified in (d).
In other words, (d) is not parallel to (a), (b), and (c) -- it's a drafting mistake to put it in the same sequence of clauses.
I read the certificate. It isn't long:
Where does this require that the submitter not be an organization? Even if you're fully committed to that idea, the obvious approach would appear to be:(1) GitStart releases their patch under the open source license of the project's choice.
(2) An employee of GitStart submits it, in their official capacity, to the project, asserting under clause (b) that the contribution is based on (consists entirely of) previous work that is covered under an appropriate license.