[antlr-interest] submission of patches, fixes, other contributions
John D. Mitchell
johnm-antlr at non.net
Mon May 30 19:56:20 PDT 2005
>>>>> "Gerald" == Gerald B Rosenberg <gbr at newtechlaw.com> writes:
[...]
> The questions raised about the warrantee/indemnity clause have caused
> Terence to question keeping it. The suggestion is that it is chilling.
> Well, actually, I believe that is a good thing. The great strength of
> the open source community are the contributors. Not just in terms of the
> nature and quality of the software they produce, but also of their
> awareness of the larger business issues and willingness to discuss,
> evaluate, and educate others in them.
Indeed.
I pointed out the AFL specifically because it matches the warranties asked
for by the draft contributor "license" that Ter posted.
> With free software, it is almost by definition impossible to balance
> economic risk. Therefore, the one best place to prevent the contribution
> of legally encumbered code is at the very outset. Anyone not savvy or
> experienced enough to understand the consequences of a particular
> contribution should be cautioned to raise the appropriate questions prior
> to making the contribution. To that end, Terence's warrantee clause is
> appropriate.
I understand your contention but I must disagree. It seems quite
hypocritical to require a level of warranty from contributors that is not
the same as what is given to the users.
Thanks,
John
More information about the antlr-interest
mailing list