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

Loring Craymer Loring.G.Craymer at jpl.nasa.gov
Tue May 31 14:56:11 PDT 2005


> -----Original Message-----
> From: antlr-interest-bounces at antlr.org [mailto:antlr-interest-
> bounces at antlr.org] On Behalf Of Bryan Ewbank
> Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2005 10:37 AM
> To: ANTLR Interest
> Subject: Re: [antlr-interest] submission of patches, fixes, other
> contributions
> 
> I think this is the same topic; sorry if I misunderstood...

No, you're right on target.

> 
> 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).

Usually it's not quite that bad; it's "all my software developed on company
time".

> 
> 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.

And if your employer is like mine, that contribution cannot be just "given
away", it must be licensed intellectual property.

> 
> 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.

Or someone else can go after your company, as with SCO and IBM.

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

Yes, and Open Source contributions are usually acceptable where "public
domain" is not--intellectual property has become a sensitive issue.  I think
that Gerald's comments have been good advice, and I'm sure that the IP legal
business is booming.

If ANTLR 2 had been released under a formal Open Source license, I could
have released 2.8 under that.  Without one, and with current copyright law,
I could not.

> 
> 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.

[And up one level in the discussion:]  I am uncertain as to whether there is
real asymmetry or not and certainly have no clue as to what the "legal
minimums" are--they have yet to be determined through court cases.  "Thou
shalt not sue for software failures" seems to me to be a pretty stringent
restriction on the user (but "don't leave home without it").  "Thou shalt
not wittingly enable a lawsuit" seems a fair restriction on contributors.

--Loring



More information about the antlr-interest mailing list