From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23312 invoked by alias); 25 Apr 2010 17:09:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 23222 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Apr 2010 17:09:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,SARE_MSGID_LONG45 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-ww0-f47.google.com (HELO mail-ww0-f47.google.com) (74.125.82.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:09:36 +0000 Received: by wwb17 with SMTP id 17so416173wwb.20 for ; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:09:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.88.15 with SMTP id z15mr3650119wee.92.1272215374195; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:09:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.8.139 with HTTP; Sun, 25 Apr 2010 10:09:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <9FD5A5B2-7195-409C-BA23-5DCF2283FC7D@apple.com> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Manuel_L=F3pez=2DIb=E1=F1ez?= Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2010 17:16:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Why not contribute? (to GCC) To: Chris Lattner Cc: ams@gnu.org, gcc Mailing List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2010-04/txt/msg00722.txt.bz2 On 25 April 2010 17:04, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Apr 25, 2010, at 7:59 AM, Manuel L=F3pez-Ib=E1=F1ez wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On what do you base these assertions? =A0Every point seems wrong to m= e. >>>> >>>> Quoting from the link: http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html >>> >>> The key distinction is that contributing to LLVM does not require you t= o sign a form (which isn't even publicly available) and mail it in to a bus= y and high-latency organization before non-trivial patches will be accepted. >> >> So, is the copyright disclaimer implicit in the patch submission? Who >> defines the conditions? > > That web page is everything that there is. =A0I am aware that this is not= as legally air-tight as the FSF disclaimer, but empirically many companies= seem to have no problem with it. So, the copyright transfer is implicit in the patch submission process. And any submitter that does not have a legal document stating that his employer company allows the submitter to send that particular code to LLVM is exposed to be sued not only by his/her employer but also by the U. of Illinois. Nice. I can understand companies not having problem with it. If something goes wrong, they can always blame the employee because there is no paper proving he or she had permission from his/her employer. Perhaps the FSF is a bit too cautious, but this rings as a bit reckless. I find surprising that the U. of Illinois has such relaxed approach to copyright. But perhaps it is also in their interest to not ask many questions. If something goes bad, they can just sue the individual contributor rather than dealing with the whole legal department of a company. Even more, if the company sues the contributor but not the U. of Illinois, they may even get to keep the code. Sweet. Have you made a poll in LLVM asking how many contributors actually have some legal paper allowing them to contribute? That is how many are currently legally exposed to a lawsuit. Would LLVM remove code if a contributor starts doubting his legal position? Cheers, Manuel.