Some free software projects reject anonymous or pseudonymous contributions, requiring you to author patches using your “real name”. Such projects have a so-called “real name” policy; Linux is one well-known example.1
The root motivations behind such policies vary, but in my experience the most often cited rationale is that it’s important to establish the provenance of the contribution for copyright reasons. In the case of Linux, contributors are asked to “sign-off” their commits to indicate their agreement to the terms of the Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO), which includes clauses like the following:
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.
To some extent, the DCO serves as a legal assertion of copyright and an agreement to license a work under given copyright terms (GPLv2 in the case of Linux). This record also means that the author of the code is accountable in case the copyright is challenged; in the case of an anonymous or pseudonymous contributor you’re shit out of luck. At that point, liability over the disagreement would likely fall into the hands of the maintainer that accepted the contribution. It is reasonable for a maintainer to ask a contributor to assert their copyright and accept liability over the provenance of their code in a legally meaningful and accountable form.
The possibility that someone may have something useful to offer to a free software project, but is not comfortable disclosing their name for any number of reasons, is a reasonable supposition. A maintainer whose “real name” policy is challenged on this basis would also be reasonable in saying “I feel for you, but I cannot agree to accept legal liability over the provenance of this code, nor can I communicate that risk to end-users who acquire code under a license that may or may not be valid as such”.
“Real name” policies are controversial in the free software community. I open with this perspective in an attempt to cool down the room. Those who feel marginalized by “real name” policies often skew young, and many treat matters such as copyright and licensing with disdain. Moreover, the problem tends to inflame deeply hurtful sentiments and raise thorny matters of identity and discrimination, and it’s easy to construe the intent of the policymakers as the intent to cause harm. The motivations behind these policies are reasonable.
That said, intent or otherwise, these policies can cause harm. The profile of the contributor who is comfortable using their “real name” is likely to fall more narrowly into over-represented demographics in our community; enforcing a real-name policy will ostracize some people. Those with marginalized identities tend to be less comfortable with disclosing their “real name”. Someone who has been subject to harassment may not be comfortable with this disclosure, since it offers more fuel to harassers keeping tabs on their activities. The use of a “real name” also confers a gender bias; avoiding a “real name” policy neatly eliminates discrimination on this basis. Of course, there are also many falsehoods programmers believe about names which can present in the implementation of such a policy.
There is also one particular problem which has been at the heart of conflict surrounding the use of “real-name” policies in free software: transgender identities. A transgender person is likely to change their name in the process of assuming their new identity. When this happens, their real name changes. However, it may or may not match their legal name – some trans people opt to change it, others don’t; if they do it is a process that takes time. Meanwhile, addressing a trans person by their old name, or “deadname”, is highly uncomfortable. Doing so deliberately, as a matter of policy or otherwise, is a form of discrimination. Many trans people experience deliberate “deadnaming” as a form of harassment in their daily lives, and institutionalizing this behavior is cruel.
The truth is, managing the names of participants is more challenging than anyone would like. On the one hand, names establish accountability and facilitate collaboration, and importantly, credit the authors of a work for services performed. On the other hand, names are highly personal and deeply affecting, and their usage and changes over time are the subject of important consideration at the discretion of their owner. A complicating factor is that handling names properly introduces technical problems which must be overcome.
To embrace the advantages of “real name” policies – establishing provenance, encouraging accountability, fostering a social environment – without causing harm, the approach I have settled on for my projects is to use the DCO to establish provenance and encourage contributors to sign-off and participate under the identity they feel most comfortable with. I encourage people to utilize an identity they use beyond the project’s walls, to foster a social environment and a connection to the broader community, to establish accountability, and to ensure that participants are reachable for further discussion on their work. If a contributor’s identity changes, we make every effort to support this change in contemporary, future, and historical use.
A change to Linux policy earlier this year refines their approach to alleviate the concerns raised in this article. ↩︎