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

[dan miller]

Ok.  I took a deep breath.  I watched the Obama speech, and that inspired me
to be brutally honest with myself, and note an objection to my own
impassioned argument.

While I think it's a completely bogus state of affairs, I can see one tiny
glimmer of logic in the "you can't look at SL viewer and work on opensim"
argument.  I have a counter-argument for my counter-argument, but that's
later.

Reading the GPL as carefully as I can (recalling IANAL), the phrase that
gives me pause is this:

"Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We
wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will
individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program
proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be
licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all."

by "everyone's free use", one could interpret it to mean that the *patent
rights* (not the copyright) must remain under the GPL.  So the perfect storm
scenario that our 'high-priced attorneys' may be considering is this:

* Programmer putzes around with GPL'd viewer

* Programmer works on opensim, but is very careful not to copy any code.  A
code review confirms that there is no obvious code-level contamination

* Linden Labs sues people because their *patent rights*, which were
implicitly released under GPL, have been indirectly incorporated into a
BSD-licensed project through Programmer's "inevitable disclosure", residual
IP etc.

So the fear of big companies is not that the code will be copied, but that
the underlying IP will infect opensim.  They are applying the same logic
they would apply to the case of a programmer who worked at Linden Labs, had
the viewer never been released to the public.

I can't recall my counter-counter-argument at the moment, but I'm sure it
was brilliant.

-danx0r

--- dan miller <danbmil99 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> > 
> > 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.
> 
> I've done so, and confirmed my suspicions: inevitable disclosure is a
> doctrine that applies to trade secrets and employment.  I can find no
> references to its application to the case at hand.  IANAL, but YAINL too
> (You All Is Not Lawyers).
> 
> I'm tired of this argument, and I don't know what "high-priced IP
> attorneys"
> gave this advice, but it's patently ridiculous.  Copyright is
> fundamentally
> different from trade secrets -- it's OPEN SOURCE for *** sake.  ANYONE CAN
> CHECK TO SEE IF THE CODE WAS COPIED.  There is absolutely no provision in
> the GPL that keeps IDEAS locked into the license; it is explicitly,
> specifically, and exclusively about the actual code, which is right there
> for anyone to read.  In fact, GPL2 has a specific prohibition *AGAINST*
> the
> exact sort of lawsuit people are apparently afraid of.  The only thing
> that
> matters is whether the code is the same, not who had access to it.
> 
> However several of the core developers have convinced themselves and/or
> been
> convinced that this is a reasonable precaution, and it seems hopeless to
> kick the dead horse.
> 
>