{"thread":{"id":"64339","subject":"Signed-off-by & the law","startedAt":"2025-10-16T20:15:23Z","lastAt":"2025-10-17T04:18:55Z","messageCount":7,"participants":["D. Ben Knoble","Collin Funk","Junio C Hamano","Theodore Ts'o"],"isPatch":false,"patchVersion":null,"patchTotal":null},"messages":[{"id":"529004","messageId":"CALnO6CDNRw3UcU9UM7rpkAoQsSmfdkxMKVihmoUmUOCv_fpbJw@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"64339","inReplyTo":null,"subject":"Signed-off-by & the law","fromName":"D. Ben Knoble","fromEmail":"ben.knoble@gmail.com","sentAt":"2025-10-16T20:15:09Z","receivedAt":"2025-10-16T20:15:23Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"ben.knoble@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/22802209?v=4"},"body":"Any contributors/users with an interest in law feel like taking a stab\nat answering \"Is Git's signed-off-by legally useful\" ?\nhttps://law.stackexchange.com/q/111158/26698\n\nHaving a solid reference answer is usually a good thing, if one exists.\n\n-- \nD. Ben Knoble\n"},{"id":"529014","messageId":"871pn2ftx6.fsf@gmail.com","threadId":"64339","inReplyTo":"CALnO6CDNRw3UcU9UM7rpkAoQsSmfdkxMKVihmoUmUOCv_fpbJw@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Signed-off-by & the law","fromName":"Collin Funk","fromEmail":"collin.funk1@gmail.com","sentAt":"2025-10-16T20:55:33Z","receivedAt":"2025-10-16T20:55:35Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"collin.funk1@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/65689063?v=4"},"body":"\"D. Ben Knoble\" writes:\n\n> Any contributors/users with an interest in law feel like taking a stab\n> at answering \"Is Git's signed-off-by legally useful\" ?\n> https://law.stackexchange.com/q/111158/26698\n>\n> Having a solid reference answer is usually a good thing, if one exists.\n\nNot sure if it has ever been a topic in court, but it would allow you to\nargue that committers signed off to the DCO acknowledging that they have\nthe ability to contribute the work under an open source license [1]. In\nother words, the they have confirmed the work is not owned by their\nemployers, as is often the case with Software Developers in the US [2].\n\nWhat I worry about is whether people actually read it and fully consider\nwhether they own the copyright to their work. My assumption is that a\nnon-small percentage of people just add a \"Signed-off-by\" tag as a\nprerequisite to getting their patch approved.\n\nThat is why I prefer copyright assignments. I have done many various GNU\nprojects that I commit to. I feel, at least in GNU's case, that they\nforce you to consider whether an employer may own your work [3]. If so,\nthe FSF will request your employer sign your copyright assignment.\n\nObviously, the assignment process is time consuming and a barrier to\nentry for new contributors. For that reason some GNU projects, such as\nglibc and binutils, allow you to send patches with \"Signed-off-by\" to\nthe DCO if you do not have a copyright assignment nowadays [4].\n\nObligitory statement that I am not a lawyer here.\n\nCollin\n\n[1] https://developercertificate.org/\n[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire#\n[3] https://github.com/coreutils/gnulib/blob/master/doc/Copyright/request-assign.future\n[4] https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Contribution%20checklist#Developer_Certificate_of_Origin\n"},{"id":"529018","messageId":"xmqqy0pa1rth.fsf@gitster.g","threadId":"64339","inReplyTo":"CALnO6CDNRw3UcU9UM7rpkAoQsSmfdkxMKVihmoUmUOCv_fpbJw@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Signed-off-by & the law","fromName":"Junio C Hamano","fromEmail":"gitster@pobox.com","sentAt":"2025-10-16T21:04:42Z","receivedAt":"2025-10-16T21:04:45Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"gitster@pobox.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/54884?v=4"},"body":"\"D. Ben Knoble\" writes:\n\n> Any contributors/users with an interest in law feel like taking a stab\n> at answering \"Is Git's signed-off-by legally useful\" ?\n> https://law.stackexchange.com/q/111158/26698\n>\n> Having a solid reference answer is usually a good thing, if one exists.\n\nThe meaning of Sign-off is left to the project that adopts the\ntrailer as its own convention. Our SubmittingPatches document\ngoverns our project and nothing else, and defines how we use the\ntrailer (namely, you sign if you certify your patch is being\nsubmitted under DCO).\n\nSo the confusion by original questioner is understandable. You\nwould be confused if you only see a Sign-off without project\ncontext and you are forced to answer what it means, because see\nabove.\n"},{"id":"529019","messageId":"CALnO6CDN6EZq6VPhUOPbO5uV09qzjsrJeU+uyvcy8BNFMqAynA@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"64339","inReplyTo":"xmqqy0pa1rth.fsf@gitster.g","subject":"Re: Signed-off-by & the law","fromName":"D. Ben Knoble","fromEmail":"ben.knoble@gmail.com","sentAt":"2025-10-16T21:06:46Z","receivedAt":"2025-10-16T21:06:59Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"ben.knoble@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/22802209?v=4"},"body":"On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 5:04 PM Junio C Hamano wrote:\n>\n> \"D. Ben Knoble\" writes:\n>\n> > Any contributors/users with an interest in law feel like taking a stab\n> > at answering \"Is Git's signed-off-by legally useful\" ?\n> > https://law.stackexchange.com/q/111158/26698\n> >\n> > Having a solid reference answer is usually a good thing, if one exists.\n>\n> The meaning of Sign-off is left to the project that adopts the\n> trailer as its own convention. Our SubmittingPatches document\n> governs our project and nothing else, and defines how we use the\n> trailer (namely, you sign if you certify your patch is being\n> submitted under DCO).\n>\n> So the confusion by original questioner is understandable. You\n> would be confused if you only see a Sign-off without project\n> context and you are forced to answer what it means, because see\n> above.\n\nThanks—I think I tried to convey this in a comment and did a poor job.\nLet me cite this as part of an answer, perhaps.\n\n-- \nD. Ben Knoble\n"},{"id":"529020","messageId":"CALnO6CC4hBBMyqEfLEn7EO28LVo7i4eDqAMLcFzSJZudVnB0oQ@mail.gmail.com","threadId":"64339","inReplyTo":"871pn2ftx6.fsf@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Signed-off-by & the law","fromName":"D. Ben Knoble","fromEmail":"ben.knoble@gmail.com","sentAt":"2025-10-16T21:16:04Z","receivedAt":"2025-10-16T21:16:16Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"ben.knoble@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/22802209?v=4"},"body":"On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 4:55 PM Collin Funk wrote:\n>\n> \"D. Ben Knoble\" writes:\n>\n> > Any contributors/users with an interest in law feel like taking a stab\n> > at answering \"Is Git's signed-off-by legally useful\" ?\n> > https://law.stackexchange.com/q/111158/26698\n> >\n> > Having a solid reference answer is usually a good thing, if one exists.\n>\n> Not sure if it has ever been a topic in court, but it would allow you to\n> argue that committers signed off to the DCO acknowledging that they have\n> the ability to contribute the work under an open source license [1]. In\n> other words, the they have confirmed the work is not owned by their\n> employers, as is often the case with Software Developers in the US [2].\n\nAs Junio points out, this is dependent on the project attaching a DCO\nmeaning to the sign-off.\n\n> What I worry about is whether people actually read it and fully consider\n> whether they own the copyright to their work. My assumption is that a\n> non-small percentage of people just add a \"Signed-off-by\" tag as a\n> prerequisite to getting their patch approved.\n\nI think this concern showed up in the question, too.\n\n>\n> That is why I prefer copyright assignments. I have done many various GNU\n> projects that I commit to. I feel, at least in GNU's case, that they\n> force you to consider whether an employer may own your work [3]. If so,\n> the FSF will request your employer sign your copyright assignment.\n>\n> Obviously, the assignment process is time consuming and a barrier to\n> entry for new contributors. For that reason some GNU projects, such as\n> glibc and binutils, allow you to send patches with \"Signed-off-by\" to\n> the DCO if you do not have a copyright assignment nowadays [4].\n\nLess germane to the original question: I'm less familiar with\ncopyright assignment, but it seems relatively heavyweight here. It\nseems ironic to me that GNU would want me to give up my own rights\nwhen contributing to their project ;)\n\n> Obligitory statement that I am not a lawyer here.\n>\n> Collin\n>\n> [1] https://developercertificate.org/\n> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire#\n> [3] https://github.com/coreutils/gnulib/blob/master/doc/Copyright/request-assign.future\n> [4] https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Contribution%20checklist#Developer_Certificate_of_Origin\n\n[kept for context]\n\n-- \nD. Ben Knoble\n"},{"id":"529023","messageId":"87tszylem4.fsf@gmail.com","threadId":"64339","inReplyTo":"CALnO6CC4hBBMyqEfLEn7EO28LVo7i4eDqAMLcFzSJZudVnB0oQ@mail.gmail.com","subject":"Re: Signed-off-by & the law","fromName":"Collin Funk","fromEmail":"collin.funk1@gmail.com","sentAt":"2025-10-16T21:29:39Z","receivedAt":"2025-10-16T21:29:41Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"collin.funk1@gmail.com","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/65689063?v=4"},"body":"\"D. Ben Knoble\" writes:\n\n> On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 4:55 PM Collin Funk wrote:\n>>\n>> \"D. Ben Knoble\" writes:\n>>\n>> > Any contributors/users with an interest in law feel like taking a stab\n>> > at answering \"Is Git's signed-off-by legally useful\" ?\n>> > https://law.stackexchange.com/q/111158/26698\n>> >\n>> > Having a solid reference answer is usually a good thing, if one exists.\n>>\n>> Not sure if it has ever been a topic in court, but it would allow you to\n>> argue that committers signed off to the DCO acknowledging that they have\n>> the ability to contribute the work under an open source license [1]. In\n>> other words, the they have confirmed the work is not owned by their\n>> employers, as is often the case with Software Developers in the US [2].\n>\n> As Junio points out, this is dependent on the project attaching a DCO\n> meaning to the sign-off.\n\nYes, I should have mentioned that, thanks. The DCO meaning is what I see\n99% of the time, so my writing assumed it.\n\n>> That is why I prefer copyright assignments. I have done many various GNU\n>> projects that I commit to. I feel, at least in GNU's case, that they\n>> force you to consider whether an employer may own your work [3]. If so,\n>> the FSF will request your employer sign your copyright assignment.\n>>\n>> Obviously, the assignment process is time consuming and a barrier to\n>> entry for new contributors. For that reason some GNU projects, such as\n>> glibc and binutils, allow you to send patches with \"Signed-off-by\" to\n>> the DCO if you do not have a copyright assignment nowadays [4].\n>\n> Less germane to the original question: I'm less familiar with\n> copyright assignment, but it seems relatively heavyweight here. It\n> seems ironic to me that GNU would want me to give up my own rights\n> when contributing to their project ;)\n\nI think this section from an article written by the FSF addresses your\nconcern [1]:\n\n Some developers worry that assigning copyright will strip them of\n all their rights to the code they've created. To address this, the\n FSF includes a \"license grantback\" to the developer in the agreement\n contract. For the developer, a license grantback means they can\n continue to modify and share their code, and technically, they could\n even distribute their software under a different license. In other\n words, by assigning copyright to the FSF, the developer does not\n give up any of these sorts of rights.\n\nAll of my assignments have a grantback clause. So you could use\nchanges/improvements you make to a program elsewhere under a different\nlicense.\n\nCollin\n\n[1] https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2022/fall/copyright-assignment-with-the-fsf\n"},{"id":"529038","messageId":"20251017041850.GD786497@mit.edu","threadId":"64339","inReplyTo":"87tszylem4.fsf@gmail.com","subject":"Re: Signed-off-by & the law","fromName":"Theodore Ts'o","fromEmail":"tytso@mit.edu","sentAt":"2025-10-17T04:18:50Z","receivedAt":"2025-10-17T04:18:55Z","isPatch":false,"sender":{"key":"tytso@mit.edu","avatar":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/51416?v=4"},"body":"On Thu, Oct 16, 2025 at 02:29:39PM -0700, Collin Funk wrote:\n> I think this section from an article written by the FSF addresses your\n> concern [1]:\n> \n> Some developers worry that assigning copyright will strip them of\n> all their rights to the code they've created. To address this, the\n> FSF includes a \"license grantback\" to the developer in the agreement\n> contract. For the developer, a license grantback means they can\n> continue to modify and share their code, and technically, they could\n> even distribute their software under a different license. In other\n> words, by assigning copyright to the FSF, the developer does not\n> give up any of these sorts of rights.\n\nThat's not the only concern. The reason why I have chosen to never to\nsign an FSF Copyright Assignment is the following:\n\n \"I hereby indemnify and hold harmless the Foundation, its officers,\n employees, and agents against any and all claims, actions or damages\n (including attorney's reasonable fees)....\"\n\nIf you ever see the word \"indemnify\" in a legal document that someone\nasks you to sign, I strongly suggest that you first talk to a lawyer\nto understand what this might mean. Speaking for myself, if I were to\ngive the FSF my intellectual output, under NO circumstances would I be\nwilling to risk my assets, my house, etc. on an indemnification\nguarantee.\n\nIn any case, as I mentioned in my comment to Ben's Law Stack Exchange\nanswer, before the DCO was drafted for the Linux Kernel's\nSubmittingPatches process documentation, it was vetted by lawyers at\nthe Linux Foundation and various LF Member Companies. Those lawyers\ncertainly viewed the DCO as being legally useful.\n\n\t \t \t \t \t - Ted\n\nP.S. The FSF has gotten more flexible over time; when I first got\ninvolved with FOSS, the FSF required copyright assignments, and so I\ndidn't contribute to FSF projects. Perhaps because enough people,\nincluding large companies, have said \"no way, Jose\", the FSF will now\naccept copyright disclimers, or even unlimited perpetual copyright\nlicenses. More recently, they've even said that limited number of\ncode contributions with a DCO might be acceptable[1].\n\n[1] https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/FSF-copyright-handling\n"}]}