OpenJDK Community Bylaws: Second Public Draft
mark at klomp.org
Wed Jun 1 07:38:57 PDT 2011
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 15:34 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
> On 06/01/2011 11:10 AM, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> > On Thu, 2011-05-19 at 14:51 -0700, mark.reinhold at oracle.com wrote:
> >> The second public draft of the OpenJDK Community Bylaws is now
> >> available , with an accompanying Q&A document .
> >>  http://openjdk.java.net/groups/gb/bylaws/draft-openjdk-bylaws-09
> >>  http://openjdk.java.net/groups/gb/bylaws/qanda.html
> > Thanks for the changes made. Most look positive and well thought
> > out. This draft is certainly an improvement over the previous one.
> > There was just one change that is a step backwards.
> > gb-members can no longer be just participants, but need to be
> > contributors. Contributors are in this draft still defined as being
> > those who assign all their rights to Oracle. Does Oracle really need
> > the rights to re-license the gb-board minutes to other companies so
> > they can make closed and proprietary derivatives of the documented
> > processes of the community?
> I'm not sure I really understand this objection. Surely you can't be
> an OpenJDK contributor unless you have signed the OCA. So, the only
> way that you could be a member of the governing board and not have
> signed the OCA would be to be a non-participant: someone who does not
> work on OpenJDK. Do we actually want people who don't work on OpenJDK
> on the GB?
There are "Participants", who work on OpenJDK that don't have signed the
OCA. That is just how the Bylaws define them.
More information about the gb-discuss