[OpenWrt-Devel] The meaning of Signed-off-by for netifd [Was: Re: [PATCH netifd] interface: warn if ip6hint is truncated]

Sebastian Kemper sebastian_ml at gmx.net
Tue Dec 3 10:25:47 EST 2019

On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 03:59:18PM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:


> 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
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.


> 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 at lists.openwrt.org

More information about the openwrt-devel mailing list