On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 03:59:18PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: <snip>
> > ok, so you claim my SoB means that *I* confirmed that my change is > compatible to the netifd's license. I didn't do that though. > > Even if it was me who added that line I doubt is has any relevance for > netifd because nothing in the netifd sources explains what an SoB means. > And the link you sent applies only to patches for openwrt, not netifd. > (Also if this is the only place for openwrt where the significance of an > SoB is described I wonder if this is relevant given that from the POV of > openwrt.git the wiki is an external resource that can be modified by > anyone. What if someone removes item (d) from the wiki or introduces an > (e)?) Hi Uwe, The OpenWrt "Submitting patches" article links to https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/submitting-patches.html. There the sign-off (and the reasons for it) is explained a bit more. So it seems OpenWrt is just following kernel.org's example. Which is fine in my opinion. Regarding somebody adding the sign-off _for_ you I share your opinion. It has to be _your_ sign-off, so if a third party adds it for you this is not correct. I didn't really think about this before reading your mail. So thanks for highlighting this. Regards, Seb > Don't get me wrong, my patch is compatible to netifd's license. But if > you want that netifd's license situation stays reasonably safe and > clean, it IMHO cannot be that you add a SoB for someone else, and give > that SoB a meaning that isn't documented for your project and assumes > things about that someone else that you cannot know for sure. So if you > require a formalism, please formalize it properly. (Of course INAL, but > that's my understanding of how open source licensing works.) > > Best regards > Uwe _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
