From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: john at keeping.me.uk (John Keeping)
Date: Thu, 12 May 2016 11:23:18 +0100
Subject: [PATCH 1/1] ui-shared: Use CRLF in HTTP headers as per RFC 7230
In-Reply-To: <20160511201527.GA17971@partyvan.eu>
References: <1462988931-10035-1-git-send-email-wub@partyvan.eu>
 <20160511183049.GA4296@serenity.lan>
 <20160511193824.GB9158@partyvan.eu>
 <20160511195752.GJ4296@serenity.lan>
 <20160511201527.GA17971@partyvan.eu>
Message-ID: <20160512102318.GB4483@john.keeping.me.uk>

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 08:15:27PM +0000, Juuso Lapinlampi wrote:
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 08:57:52PM +0100, John Keeping wrote:
> > "generally recognized" is a bit nebulous, which is why a blanket policy
> > is safer as well as much simpler to police.
> 
> Guess we are going to wait for this bit to rot here over a silly blanket
> policy then, as I have established my authorship already with Git
> features and argued about threshold of originality. Same goes for the
> other patches I submitted under the project's free software license
> (GPLv2).

"theshold of originality" is crap for two reasons:

1. if we use it as a criterion for requiring a sign-off then someone has
   to decide for each and every patch whether a sign-off is required,
   which increases the workload for maintainers with no benefit
2. IANAL but if you give a lawyer the choice between asserting that
   something is too small to matter for copyright or getting a sign-off
   certifying the DCO, I'll bet good money on them choosing the latter.

> I know to be very reasonable with code review processes but this
> Signed-off-by: policy is just too much.

If we were talking about a CLA I'd agree, but adding one line to the
commit message to certify that you have the rights to submit the patch
under the project's license doesn't seem that onerous to me (especially
when git-commit or git-format-patch will add it for you with "-s").