Re: Signed-off-by & the law

From: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 16, 2025, 20:55 UTC
Message-ID: <871pn2ftx6.fsf@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALnO6CDNRw3UcU9UM7rpkAoQsSmfdkxMKVihmoUmUOCv_fpbJw@mail.gmail.com>

"D. Ben Knoble" <ben.knoble@gmail.com> writes:

Show 5 quoted lines

> Any contributors/users with an interest in law feel like taking a stab
> at answering "Is Git's signed-off-by legally useful" ?
> https://law.stackexchange.com/q/111158/26698
>
> Having a solid reference answer is usually a good thing, if one exists.

Not sure if it has ever been a topic in court, but it would allow you to argue that committers signed off to the DCO acknowledging that they have the ability to contribute the work under an open source license [1]. In other words, the they have confirmed the work is not owned by their employers, as is often the case with Software Developers in the US [2].

What I worry about is whether people actually read it and fully consider whether they own the copyright to their work. My assumption is that a non-small percentage of people just add a "Signed-off-by" tag as a prerequisite to getting their patch approved.

That is why I prefer copyright assignments. I have done many various GNU projects that I commit to. I feel, at least in GNU's case, that they force you to consider whether an employer may own your work [3]. If so, the FSF will request your employer sign your copyright assignment.

Obviously, the assignment process is time consuming and a barrier to entry for new contributors. For that reason some GNU projects, such as glibc and binutils, allow you to send patches with "Signed-off-by" to the DCO if you do not have a copyright assignment nowadays [4].

Obligitory statement that I am not a lawyer here.

Collin

[1] https://developercertificate.org/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_for_hire# [3] https://github.com/coreutils/gnulib/blob/master/doc/Copyright/request-assign.future [4] https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/Contribution%20checklist#Developer_Certificate_of_Origin