On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 08:15:27PM +0000, Juuso Lapinlampi wrote: > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 08:57:52PM +0100, John Keeping wrote: > > "generally recognized" is a bit nebulous, which is why a blanket policy > > is safer as well as much simpler to police. > > Guess we are going to wait for this bit to rot here over a silly blanket > policy then, as I have established my authorship already with Git > features and argued about threshold of originality. Same goes for the > other patches I submitted under the project's free software license > (GPLv2).
"theshold of originality" is crap for two reasons: 1. if we use it as a criterion for requiring a sign-off then someone has to decide for each and every patch whether a sign-off is required, which increases the workload for maintainers with no benefit 2. IANAL but if you give a lawyer the choice between asserting that something is too small to matter for copyright or getting a sign-off certifying the DCO, I'll bet good money on them choosing the latter. > I know to be very reasonable with code review processes but this > Signed-off-by: policy is just too much. If we were talking about a CLA I'd agree, but adding one line to the commit message to certify that you have the rights to submit the patch under the project's license doesn't seem that onerous to me (especially when git-commit or git-format-patch will add it for you with "-s"). _______________________________________________ CGit mailing list CGit@lists.zx2c4.com http://lists.zx2c4.com/mailman/listinfo/cgit
