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

[dan miller]

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

> > What it boils down to, though?  This discussion is simply more fear,
> > uncertainty, and doubt thrown at the viability of the GPL for anything
> > at all.
> 
> Absolutely.  It's FUD, and FUD is causing self-censorship -- that's why
> this
> sticks in my craw.
> 
> > The only possible monkeywrench is patent infringement, but I don't
> > know if any patent filing has actually occurred on anything that
> > Linden's employees may have invented.  (I can't find any, but that
> > doesn't mean anything.)
> 
> That's exactly why a big-company attorney would give this sort of advice. 
> We can't know if there are any Linden patent filings out there, or what
> Linden's stance might be.  Therefore, the big companies who are interested
> in opensim (I have no doubt that an opinion from one of their overpaid
> hacks
> is the genesis of this 'rule') are taking an absurdly cautionary stance by
> insisting that no opensim programmers can ever be exposed to the SL viewer
> source.
> 
> What is patently ridiculous (ha!) about all this is, the problem could
> still
> exist if Linden released their viewer under a BSD license.  They could
> still
> have a patent; they could still claim 'residual information' or
> 'inevitable
> disclosure' with respect to programmers who confess to having read said
> code.    The reason GPL rears its ugly head is that it explicitly states
> that you can't let your patents restrict other's GPL rights.  Note however
> that letting some of these patent rights slip into a BSD project *does
> not*
> restrict anyone's right to use the GPL code, nor does it go afowl of GPL
> because there is no code copying!  (I shoulda been a lawyer..)
> 
> What makes it triply ridiculous is that a lawsuit could easily transpire
> anyway, with a claim that some programmer is lying about having read the
> code.  Inevitable Disclosure involves trade secrets and confidentiality
> agreements, where it is clear who had access and who didn't.  Having
> programmers (whose r/l identities we often don't even know) pledge on IRC
> or
> email that they never looked at code that is right out there for anyone to
> anonymously download, is very unlikely to hold up in a court case.
> 
> So the whole thing remains... just silly, IMSHO.
> 
>