[antlr-interest] submission of patches, fixes, other contributions

[Bryan Ewbank]

I think this is the same topic; sorry if I misunderstood...

Some of us do software for a living, and we have signed something with
our employer saying "all my software belong to you" (more or less).

That means, using me as an example, that I cannot simply send a patch
to ANTLR; I have to get my employer to say it is "a good thing" to
contribute to ANTLR.

By saying Terence can blame me if my employer comes hunting for blood,
it gets him out of the middle.  He has a paper trail saying I told him
it was okay, so they can come hunting my head instead of Terence's.

Yes, there is F/OSS.  No, I can't blithely contribute to it - my
employer is paying for exclusive use.

On 5/31/05, John D. Mitchell <johnm-antlr at non.net> wrote:
> >>>>> "Gerald" == Gerald B Rosenberg <gbr at newtechlaw.com> writes:
> [...]
> 
> > Now to your point.  What I suggest is not hypocritical, but you are
> > correct that the protections are asymmetric.  The free software market
> > place is not zero sum gain, but zero sum.  Wish the economic model was
> > different, but without monetization, there is no rational way to transfer
> > risk in any direction.  In such situations, the only way to remain viable
> > is to minimize as much as possible risk from the outset.
> 
> It's both asymmetric and hypocritical.  One of the big points about the
> intent of the F/OSS world is the removal of hypocrisy.  I.e. the point of
> all of this is *more* than just the legal minimums.