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

[John D. Mitchell]

>>>>> "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