[Opensim-dev] Clarification on Licencing and Moving Forward as a Community

[Serendipity Seraph]

On Nov 2, 2010, at 5:19 PM, Mark Malewski wrote:

> Forming a "legal entity" (an LLC) creates LIABILITY.  You are giving LL a "legal entity" to sue.
> 

a) They don't have a case;
b) GPL doesn't work that way;
c) LGPL explicitly states it doesn't work that way;
d) Open source code that a company supports does not get shutdown just because the company got in some sort of difficulty.

Lawyers get paid to make the simple complex.  


> At this point, LL has no one to sue/fight/shut down.  By creating a "legal entity", you are giving LL (or whoever buys out LL in the future) a target to fight/sue (and an opportunity to shut down "OpenSim").
> 

OpenSim is open source.  You couldn't make it itself go away if you had to. 

> "Deep pocket" Legal teams (i.e. LL) could go after OpenSim (if it were a "legal entity).  Litigation is extremely costly, and regardless of what the licensing is on the viewer (GPL, LGPL, etc.) there is still the legal issue of "reverse engineering".

OpenSim has reverse engineered from day one working backwards from the open source viewer code as I understand it.  Why would LL have any standing to sue at this late date for what it has accepted all along.

> 
> At this point, "OpenSim" is NOT a legal entity, and there is no real "head" to "target" or sue (or "shut down").  By forming a LEGAL entity, you open the whole project up to LIABILITY.  All it takes is one "cease and desist" letter, and the whole project (and "spawn" projects) could be put in danger (and could turn into a large and costly legal battle).
> 

Nope.  At the most you would kill off that legal entity.

> This would put EVERYONE (including all the businesses and other projects that are based upon OpenSim core) in danger.  As the outcome of that litigation would determine the future of ANY projects based on OpenSim.  Sometimes it's best to just leave things the way they are.  Some may feel that we are being "overly cautious" but there's good reason for it.  We don't have the deep pockets for litigation that LL has, and all it takes is a "cease and desist" letter (and threats of costly litigation) to put a project like this under.
> 

Nope. Open source does not work that way. Even if the official business entity supporting the main OpenSim code body did get in trouble it would not make it illegal to use OpenSim code.  



> If we are NOT a legal "entity" then we are nothing more than individual contributors to a "headless" open source project.  Other groups and other projects can SPAWN off of this one, and continue to evolve (i.e. RealXtend, ScienceSim, etc.).
> 
> Anyone can take the OpenSim core, and form their own new project.  They can write/add code, and make their own modules/source freely available (just like RealXtend or ScienceSim, etc.)
> 
> > and should be done immediately before communities branch off on the
> > assumption that the OpenSim policy will continue to exclude them.
> 
> There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with "communities" branching off of OpenSim (i.e. RealXtend, ScienceSim, etc.)  This keeps the OpenSim "core" community safe, and innovative development work done at various community "branches" and innovative ideas can always be shared or eventually fed back to core.  
> 
> Creative "innovation" is a good thing, but by allowing people to work on (or view) the LL Viewer source code, and then work on OpenSim server (without a 6-month "breather" period) you are ultimately poisoning the whole OpenSim project by ALLOWING contributors to "reverse engineer" the LL Server.  (Thus opening up the whole project AND all other spawn projects to LEGAL LIABILITY).
> 
> Regardless of what "license" a Viewer source is (GPL, LGPL,etc.), by enforcing a 6-month "breather" period, you are ensuring that you are not "contaminating" the OpenSim Server project by contributing server code (that could be developed or influenced by viewing the source code of LL's Second Life Viewer).  
> 
> "You have not studied source code from the GPL Second Life viewer or its derivatives within the last 6 months." 
> 

Sigh.  GPL is not *that* viral.  Never has been.

> Keep in mind that LL's server code is Intellectual Property, and it is NOT open source, or freely available.  
> 

And no one contributes that has access to it.

> Regardless of what "license" the LL Viewer is, that really has nothing to do with protecting the OpenSim server core from being "tainted" by anyone having viewed the LL Server source, or LL Viewer Source, while contributing code to OpenSim Server.
> 

The first is true but the second is not.

> Allowing contributors to view Second Life Viewer source and work on OpenSim server, without a "6-month" breather period could put the whole project in jeopardy as contributor's could be "influenced" by LL and Second Life's viewer source code (thus "reverse engineering" LL's server). 
> 

Such clean room production of another server that uses similar protocols is in no wise the same from a legal POV as reverse engineering as I understand it.  If it was then the entire OpenSim project would be on shaky ground from the beginning.  Am I missing something?

> Ultimately the "community" needs to develop new viewers that are written from the ground up completely independent of LL and Second Life (i.e. Naali, etc.)
> 

I don't think it is particularly relevant one way or the other but ok. 

> This 6-month "breathing period" is a reasonable effort to ensure that developers that are contributing code to OpenSim Server are NOT "reverse engineering" LL's server code, nor are they "influenced" by viewing the LL viewer source, and then adding/developing features into the OpenSim Server code based on the LL viewer source (ultimately "reverse engineering" LL's server code).
> 
> It would be EXTREMELY difficult to prove that we are NOT "reverse engineering" LL's server if we are in fact allowing contributors to view Second Life Viewer source code, while developing a server that acts, looks, and behaves like Second Life (and even allows for LSL scripting).    

You don't need to prove that.  The accuser needs to prove any such claim.  Note that this reverse engineering FUD is not the reason for the existing policy as from the beginning OpenSim explicitly attempted to design and build a server that acted enough like LL server to support the same experience and clients.  It was designed to support the existing client protocols.  That horse left the barn a long time ago.  You would need to successfully claim that building a server to drive a client you have legal source code access to is in fact reverse engineering another server that you do not have access to.  That claim if it were going to be made would have needed to be made at the beginning of the OpenSim project.  Not only did that not occur but LL acted to encourage the early efforts as I understand it.  So such a claim now would smell to high heaven and I very much doubt you could get any court to take it seriously.


> 
> > You have not witnessed, seen or been party to the development of the 
> > official Linden Lab Server Software.
> 
> This statement is there for a reason.
> 
> > You have not studied source code from the GPL Second Life viewer or 
> > its derivatives within the last 6 months.
> 
> This statement is there for a reason as well.  The OpenSim project MUST ensure that contributors are NOT "reverse engineering" LL's server code by viewing any LL/Second Life Viewer or Server source, and that their contributions to OpenSim core are ORIGINAL and NOT being influenced by viewing any LL source code.  
> 

I don't think so.  It is a paranoia safety thing that may or may not make sense and certainly doesn't with LGPL licensing.  Please note that the reverse engineering argument you made above is not why this is there.


> It's difficult to say that this is true if you allow contributers to view LL's source code, and work on OpenSim server (without a 6-month "quarantine" period").  This is an Intellectual Property issue, not a "GPL" licensing issue.
> 

GPL is an IP license so the kind of license is quite important.  IP is a type of contract enforcement.  So the wording of the contract is important.

- s
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20101102/9e7b8fc6/attachment-0001.html>