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

[Jonas Gorski]

Hi,

On Tue, 3 Dec 2019 at 16:29, Hans Dedecker <dedeckeh at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 3, 2019 at 3:59 PM Uwe Kleine-König <uwe at 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 <uwe at 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 <uwe at 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

I have to agree with everyone, so please don't add SoBs for *anyone*
except yourself. This is basically similar to forging a signature
(just without the direct legal consequences of that).

> 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

Indeed, so patches without one, or a broken one need to be fixed by
the submitter/author. This cannot be fixed up by the maintainer
(except maybe with an explicit permission of the author).

Regards
Jonas

_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel