"D. Ben Knoble" [off-list ref] writes:

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