--On August 1, 2005 12:06:27 AM -0400 "Geir Magnusson Jr."
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Comments? (Like I need to ask for them... )
I think Part II should be removed or rather be the opposite: which
components are you forbidden to participate in due to the answers in the
questionnaire. I don't like seeing the community get pigeon-holed like
that: commit access should be 'blanket' unless there's a legal reason not
to do so.
Part IV should contain mention of the software grant to the ASF. We should
have these on file for all large donations not developed under the
'confines' of the ASF.
Part VIII should probably mention "employed by a corporation".
(Self-employed people wouldn't necessarily need to sign a CCLA.)
Furthermore, my understanding of copyright law is that you can't be tainted
by 'reading' source code years ago and then writing a version
independently. (In fact, the examples I've heard of are 'minutes apart' is
legally acceptable.) Of course, patent infringement occurs whether you've
read the code or not. FWIW, our compiler languages class here at UC Irvine
teaches Java internals - therefore, they'd all be 'tainted' under this
definition - which isn't actually the case.
The relevant questions should be whether you are currently covered by an
NDA or other confidential agreements with Sun (err, BigCo). -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
