OpenJDK Community Bylaws: Second Public Draft
mark at klomp.org
Wed Jun 1 08:03:29 PDT 2011
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.
> 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".
More information about the gb-discuss