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

[Uwe Kleine-König]

On 12/3/19 4:28 PM, Hans Dedecker 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 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.

> 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.

Bye
Uwe

[1] well, or at least what I consider to be necessary

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/openwrt-devel/attachments/20191203/dce2fbb9/attachment.sig>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
openwrt-devel mailing list
openwrt-devel at lists.openwrt.org
https://lists.openwrt.org/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel