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

[Dickson, Mike (ISS Software)]

You lost me there.  Inevitable disclosure deals with non-competes and trade secrets.   How is that related to how the GPL and BSD licenses apply to code?  In both cases the code is in the "open". So it's clearly not secret anything. That's part of the point of these licenses.  Also non-competes are enforceable (well, in some states they are) contracts signed between an employer and employee, usually for compensation.

It's really sad that creative projects get held hostage by FUD, especially open projects that should be based on collaboration.  BTW, I do understand the pros and cons of BSD vs. GPL and why they aren't compatible.  I like the BSD license, so I'm not arguing for a change.  I guess at some level I'm not arguing at all, the project contributors can agree to anything they wish.  As it stands now I couldn't contribute because I've looked at some of the offending code.

One other interesting element, I've heard a number of arguments that sticking to protocols keeps things "safe". Why would you assume that?  Protocols are licensable the same as code. Or at least they've been licensed before. You could easily argue the protocol is the real trade secret and more related to inevitable disclosure that any specific (and especially open) implementation of it.

This is the last from me on this topic.  Clearly the project can adopt any guidelines it wishes.  I just think it's a shame that contributions are being restricted or you're looking for some sort of blanket indemnification to allow broader contributions. At least that's my perception of the problem, I'm correctable if wrong.

Mike

From: opensim-dev-bounces at lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev-bounces at lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of David Wendt JR.
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:38 PM
To: opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Violating the GPL by looking (Re: Voice Module)

Google "inevitable disclosure". This is the direction case law is heading towards, sadly.

Also both the BSD nor the GPL are "truely open licenses", they are both free software and open source licenses. The only difference is that the GPL makes it illegal to strip GPL permissions or sublicense the code out. It's incompatible with BSD but usable in a "Free World" system. Also, if you want to complain about people taking BSD code into GPL projects, I would like to point out the large numbers of proprietary projects that take BSD code and don't give back, period. You get to either say "use my code in any project with any license" or "use my code with my license attached", not "use my code in any project with any license so long as that license doesn't forbid anyone from changing the license".

The reason why we don't look at the client code is simply because of fears of a possible lawsuit by Linden Labs or any other GPL contributor, again if you haven't Googled "inevitable disclosure" yet please do so. True it says nothing about this in the GPL or BSD licenses, but the courts can interpret them any way they choose. RealXtend is taking the same route with their modifications of our simulator and Linden's viewer, having separate developer teams that don't share anything but protocol specifications. And before someone says "oh why not just use the GPL then" we have practical reasons to use BSD, including the PhysX plugin which can't be GPL, and I believe we use some other BSD-licensed libraries like libsecondlife that we'd like to contribute patches back upstream if we could. So we're at this curious state where we can't practically do anything client-sided until the viewer project matures enough to be usable for day-to-day use on the Linden and OpenSim grids.
----- Original Message ----
From: "Dickson, Mike (ISS Software)" <mike.dickson at hp.com>
To: "opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de" <opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de>; Ryan McDougall <ryan at 3di.jp>
Cc: Second Life Developer Mailing List <sldev at lists.secondlife.com>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 8:29:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Violating the GPL by looking (Re: Voice Module)

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> [mailto: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<mailto: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



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de<mailto:Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de>
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev


________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http:/mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ%20>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20080319/998404f4/attachment-0001.html>