[Opensim-dev] Violating the GPL by looking (Re: Voice Module)

[Dickson, Mike (ISS Software)]

Sorry but this is really specious.  I'd like see a cited example where anything remotely close to this was challenged and held up in court.  The GPL protects a physical implementation.  If I copy that implementation I'm in violation. In the GPL case especially the argument can be made that you *can* look at the code and see if what you did involves direct code copying.  If I re-implement ideas I *may* be in violation of a patent but then anything GPL'd can't be protected that way anywho and even then patents are supposed to describe an implementation so that's also questionable.

IBM may choose to be ultra-conservative because they have proprietary IP they wish to protect from GPL "taint".  That doesn't make their practice best practice for everyone else.

The OpenSIM project selected IMHO a truly open license. This GPL nonsense comes up every so often and it's really a shame.  I applaud the team for licensing OpenSIM using a BSD license.  The GPL IMO obscures more than enlightens.  Licenses are a fact of life, shame but it's true.  The OpenSIM team picked a path that's probably the least complicated.  Let's not mess that up with indemnification bull for a license that shouldn't IMO apply to OpenSIM work anyway.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: opensim-dev-bounces at lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev-bounces at lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Rob Lanphier
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 6:25 PM
To: Ryan McDougall
Cc: Second Life Developer Mailing List; opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
Subject: [Opensim-dev] Violating the GPL by looking (Re: Voice Module)

On 3/16/08 9:01 PM, Ryan McDougall wrote:
> The issue is _not_ reading any form of GPL then whistling dixie; the
> issue is reading SL's client viewer and writing BSD code for a related
> project, OpenSim.
>
> It creates a situation where you can be accused to violating the GPL
> by trans-coding, intentionally or not, SL viewer code from GPL to BSD,
> and open up a small community to a legal dark cloud.
>
> Me personally, I'm not a big fan of that interpretation, but its one
> upheld by US court case law, risk-averse corporate lawyers for a major
> 3-letter computer company, and more importantly risk-averse OpenSim
> core developers.
>
> If LL wanted to clarify the situation, they're welcome to draw up a
> covenant not to sue OpenSim or its developers over the matter. That's
> by far my favorite option.
>
>

What *exactly* would such a statement say?  Can you point me to an example of any company who publishes GPL source code that has ever done anything like this?

Rob