On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 08:56:46PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On 12/3/19 4:28 PM, Hans Dedecker wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 3:59 PM Uwe Kleine-König <u...@kleine-koenig.org> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hello Hans, > >> > >> On 12/3/19 8:50 AM, Hans Dedecker wrote: > >>> On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 9:29 PM Uwe Kleine-König <u...@kleine-koenig.org> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 11/29/19 8:50 PM, Hans Dedecker wrote: > >>>>> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 7:11 PM Uwe Kleine-König > >>>>> <u...@kleine-koenig.org> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> When for example a /60 is assigned to a network the last 4 bits of the > >>>>>> ip6hint are unused. Emit a warning if any of these unused bits is set > >>>>>> as > >>>>>> it indicates that someone didn't understand how the hint is used. (As I > >>>>>> did earlier today resulting in spending some time understanding the > >>>>>> code.) > >>>>> Patch applied with some minor tweaks > >>>>> (https://git.openwrt.org/?p=project/netifd.git;a=commit;h=e45b1408284c05984b38a910a1f0a07d6c761397); > >>>> > >>>> The updated warning message is fine. > >>>> > >>>>> I added your SoB as this was missing in the patch > >>>> > >>>> I wonder what the significance of the SoB is given that a) it's not > >>>> documented (at least in the netifd sources) and b) it seems to be ok to > >>>> "fake" someone else's SoB and c) there are several commits in the newer > >>>> history of netifd that don't have a SoB of either Author or Committer > >>>> (or both). > >>> For details why a SoB is required; see > >>> https://openwrt.org/submitting-patches#sign_your_work. > >>> If there're any commits in the netifd repo which don't have a SoB this > >>> must rather stay an exception than becoming a general rule. > >> > >> 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)?) > >> > >> 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.) > > I won't waste further my time and energy on this ... > > I acted in good faith and next time if I find a patch from you without > > SoB I will just simply reject it to avoid contra productive > > discussions
Yes, and please do so as well for anyone else who doesn't add SoB herself. > > I would have expected that the discussion is in your interest because > not being strict with licenses is something that really hurts when it > goes wrong. My intention is not to drain your energy but to highlight > the necessity[1] to be stricter with license stuff than the way my patch > was handled. I definitely agree, adding SoB on behalf of someone else should not happen and I haven't seen it happening before this occasion. > > > Patches delivered for all projects (netifd/libubox/ubus/...) > > maintained by OpenWrt must have a SoB in line what is described on the > > Wiki; this does not solely apply to the OpenWrt repo > > > > This closes the discussion for me > > Fine for me, I won't press the matter any further. I wish you that this > problem won't backfire. I hope as well... > > Bye > Uwe > > [1] well, or at least what I consider to be necessary > _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
