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.
