[quagga-dev 11661] Re: [PATCH] bgpd: Fixes for recent well-known-attr check patch.

Paul Jakma paul at jakma.org
Mon Oct 27 16:46:23 GMT 2014


On Mon, 27 Oct 2014, Vincent JARDIN wrote:

> I have lost tracks of some emails, which one?

Further down in:

https://lists.quagga.net/pipermail/quagga-dev/2014-October/011702.html

> so it confirms the willingness of this patch to be included into the 
> opensource project and to grant it to the opensource project.

That's sort of obvious when you make a change to a file that where (9/10) 
you had to scroll past a big legal notice, and to open that file you had 
to navigate past a big COPYING file (often referred to by the per file 
notices).

For people for whom this is not obvious, I doubt they are going to go 
google for "signed-off-by" to educate themselves, when they are ordered 
"Please add signed-off-by". They are just going to copy that line.

Basically, if you are happy with the level of certainty signed-off-by 
gives you then you should be equally happy with just having a notice in 
HACKING.tex (kept as in PDF form on the website), and publicising the need 
to read HACKING. And then we don't have to have continual rounds of "Oh, 
please add signed-off-by" emails to the list followed by reposting of 
patches (if they actually do so).

Less work for everyone.

Less work to get patches in is good.

If you think you /do/ require contributors to agree to something in some 
way that'd stand in court, signed-off-by doesn't give you any.

What is useful is that commit messages contain all relevant details about 
authorship and rights claims (signed-off-by doesn't buy anything 
there, as it's often being used to show approval rather than authorship).

regards,
-- 
Paul Jakma	paul at jakma.org	@pjakma	Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
I have never let my schooling interfere with my education.
 		-- Mark Twain




More information about the Quagga-dev mailing list