From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: wub at partyvan.eu (Juuso Lapinlampi)
Date: Wed, 11 May 2016 19:38:24 +0000
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] ui-shared: Use CRLF in HTTP headers as per RFC 7230
In-Reply-To: <20160511183049.GA4296@serenity.lan>
References: <1462988931-10035-1-git-send-email-wub@partyvan.eu>
 <20160511183049.GA4296@serenity.lan>
Message-ID: <20160511193824.GB9158@partyvan.eu>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 07:30:49PM +0100, John Keeping wrote:
> Missing sign-off; see http://developercertificate.org/ for what this
> means.

I am aware, but small changes like these are not generally recognized to
fit the threshold of originality for copyright protection. Thus, the
idea of Signed-off is quite often silly.

There are arguably cases where Signed-off is useful, for example, where
the maintainer has changed the commit message of the author or
co-authored code into the patch. An example from another repository I
maintain:

    commit d17c8830a8cb97fb48201990f5d57eb7a7b9e4ee
    Author: Eliot Whalan <ewhal at pantsu.cat>
    Date:   Thu Jan 21 11:41:17 2016 +1000
    
        Remove unused page specific CSS (old, ded)
    
        The tools page has only had alive and maintained tools on it since Pomf
        2.0.0. Ded and old tools have been removed in commit
        627937d0fa632a677f278af467886915c0a36f35.
    
        It is anticipated that these style rules will be never used again. If we
        did, we can add them back later: "you aren't gonna need it" (YAGNI). If
        it's dead, you should probably remove the tool from the tools page
        instead of beating a dead horse.
    
        [wub at partyvan.eu: Modified Git commit message, as discussed]
        Signed-off-by: Juuso Lapinlampi <wub at partyvan.eu>

In this case, the sole author is me and I don't think it's sensible to
use Signed-off-by. Not at least until Git makes it a default behavior.

I am the author of these patches with my name and email address in Git's
"Author:" field.

(Off-topic: Notice how the copyright headers are stuck in year 2014 in
the source file. Year ranges (2006-2014) have never been tested in court
as far as I'm aware, but comma seperated copyright years (2006, 2007,
2008, [...]) have been as far as I'm aware.)