[Opensim-dev] Violating the GPL by looking (Re: bad analogies)

[Daedius]

So. Does this mean if someone starts pasting GPL code of OpenSim code
into our mailing list, we could all be tainted! Oh no! Burn out your
eyes =o

int main() {

Note: This code was not from OpenSim. Or was it?  I don't know.  What
I do know is fear mongering is the not the way to make the world
better.

- Daedius


On 3/19/08, David Wendt JR. <dcrkid at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> About my comment about 'inevitable disclosure', it was a bad attempt to make
> an analogy. My impression was that there would be some sort of argument that
> might hold up in court that our code was GPL tainted because we had a chance
> to look at their code and copy it, violating the GPL's requirements that all
> code it covers must stay GPL. However, after reading comments on the mailing
> list and some self-reflection I've realized something interesting... you
> can't copy code from the Linden viewer into the server anyway! The Linden
> viewer is C++ and the OpenSIM codebase is C#. Not to mention, the only thing
> that would be of interest to our project in the Linden viewer would be
> network packet handlers. Plus, copyright covers implementations, not ideas.
> Dan Miller's final comment, however, is very true: There's no way to prove
> that we didn't look at the code, especially since the code download can be
> anonymous, routed through tor straight to a hidden truecrypt volume.
>
> As for the whole "linden might have a patent" thing, that has nothing to do
> with any allegations of GPL taint. If Linden has a patent they can use
> against us, it harms us irregardless of GPL taint. The viewer is licensed
> GPLv2 anyway, which doesn't have any patent-grant language. I wouldn't
> expect Linden to actually sue over such patents, given that they are aiming
> for a completely open grid. Nevertheless we should be wary of any such
> patents and avoid them if at all possible.
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: dan miller <danbmil99 at yahoo.com>
> To: opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 3:18:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Violating the GPL by looking (Re: Voice Module)
>
>
> --- 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.
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
>  Opensim-dev mailing list
>  Opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
>  https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>
>