On Fri, 22 Jan 2016, Donald Sharp wrote:
https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches
Internally. I was just extending it to quagga-dev. I think
'Signed-off-by' has a valid meaning in that we are certifying a chain
of ownership for licensing purposes, which is not unreasonable.
There is clear confusion about its significance and use in the
open-source world. That makes it very weak. Worse, even the use
documented above (the "DCO") gives it overloaded and hence ambiguous
meaning.
Indeed, if there are people using "signed off by" to indicate additional
authors, that's really bad. Cause SOB doesn't indicate that.
I used to just ignore it, but if that's how some are using it then that
would shift my position from just ignoring it to actively rejecting
patches for having it.
* If you want to indicate additional authors, "signed-off-by" does not
achieve that. You need to unambiguously declare the additional authors
(and all other interess).
* If you want to indicate or document copyright claims, you (and
everyone else) would be much better off if you add the well-recognised:
"Copyright (C) <Year> <Name of entity/person>, [<Location/contact details>]"
string near the top of the files that that you/the-entity might have a
copyright interest in. I would *strongly* encourage people to err on
*adding* those in submissions.
Especially in light of the babel licensing issue that we had earlier
this year.
All the licensing requirements were met there, the issue was something
else.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma [email protected] @pjakma Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
need to wrap system in aluminum foil to fix problem
_______________________________________________
Quagga-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
