JCPNEXT4-20: Clarify the role of individuals

[apastsya]

Jira issue originally created by user pcurran:

Individuals may join the JCP in their own right, but are required to submit an Exhibit B in which their employer states that necessary IP rights will be granted.

There are several problems with this approach. For example:

• People change employers.
• Exhibit B grants IP rights only for a specific JSR rather than the broader rights (for all JSRs) granted under Section 6.
• Commercial entities can game the system by having their employees join as individuals.

Clarify the Agent relationship (who is a "duly authorized representative of Employer?")

Clarify the relationship between non-commercial organizations and their members.

[apastsya]

• is related to JSR358-38: Define standard Terms of Use for participation in JSR collaboration projects

[apastsya]

Comment created by pcurran:

During the May EC meeting Gile Tene commented on this issue. Quoting from the minutes of that meeting:

"Gile Tene argued that individuals should not be treated separately from organizations. He noted that individuals and corporations are independent legal entities, and that individuals have many legal relationships with other entities (many corporations and other individuals). An employment relationship is just a legal relationship between two such entities. We cannot hope to control individuals by requiring some agreement terms with all current, past and future employers, any more than we could hope to require corporations to get the approval of all current, past, and future business partners. He therefore suggested that Exhibit B be dropped, and that instead we require that the signee of the JSPA assert that they have the legal right to make appropriate IP grants."

In a later discussion on this matter Don Deutsch pointed out that in case of a violation of IP rights (individual X contributes to JSR Y material belonging to employer Z, who later sues the Spec Lead for violation) the Spec Lead would be better protected if they had a signed agreement from the employer as opposed to a simple assertion from the employee.

[apastsya]

Comment created by pcurran:

This is a comment - we're just testing. Please ignore this

[apastsya]

Comment created by keilw:

While we agreed yesterday, that a "carbon copy" of the OCA is unlikely to serve the JCP's needs, not only Individual Members would highly benefit, if a replacement for Exhibit B would apply to the contributor the way it was discussed or that OCA also seems to work

Oracle requires that contributors to all of its open-source projects sign the Oracle Contributor Agreement (OCA)...
sounds like one agreement covers all of its open-source projects, not ONE PER JSR like Exhitit B requires at the moment, even for those who are both employee and boss in one person.

Happy to contribute more to this where possible at the F2F

[apastsya]

Comment created by heathervc:

We are addressing this in Issue #23; we should close this issue.

[apastsya]

Comment created by pcurran:

Resolved by the changes we propose for several other issues.

[apastsya]

Issue was closed with resolution "Fixed"