OpenJDK Community Bylaws: Second Public Draft

[Andrew Haley]

On 06/01/2011 04:03 PM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 15:53 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
>> OK, so this is really an objection to the OCA per se: it assumes that the
>> OCA is in general, a Bad Thing, so anything that can be done to reduce
>> its use is, by definition, a Good Thing.
> 
> Of course.

But you can't simply assume that this is so for the sake of a response
to the OpenJDK Community Bylaws.  It's only conditionally true: "if the
OCA is in general a Bad Thing then we shouldn't require GB members to be
OCA signatories."  But I don't think that the GB believes that the OCA
is in general a Bad Thing.

>> But this doesn't make any sense.  If you do not contribute any code to
>> the project then it does not matter at all whether you have signed the
>> OCA.  No code has changed hands, so you have not given away any rights
>> to that nonexistent code.
> 
> In general I try to avoid signing legal papers if they are not
> necessary :) I assume most people will not just sign some paper just
> because it might be fun one day and this giant US corporation would
> really be happy if you just signed it right now "just in case".

Right, but this objection has no logical basis.

Andrew.