<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">Google "inevitable disclosure". This is the direction case law is heading towards, sadly.<br><br>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".<br><br>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.<br><br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">----- Original Message ----<br>From: "Dickson, Mike (ISS Software)" <mike.dickson@hp.com><br>To: "opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de" <opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de>; Ryan McDougall <ryan@3di.jp><br>Cc: Second Life Developer Mailing List <sldev@lists.secondlife.com><br>Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 8:29:49 PM<br>Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Violating the GPL by looking (Re: Voice Module)<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>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.<br><br>Mike<br><br>-----Original
Message-----<br>From:
<a ymailto="mailto:opensim-dev-bounces@lists.berlios.de" href="mailto:opensim-dev-bounces@lists.berlios.de">opensim-dev-bounces@lists.berlios.de</a>
[mailto:<a ymailto="mailto:opensim-dev-bounces@lists.berlios.de" href="mailto:opensim-dev-bounces@lists.berlios.de">opensim-dev-bounces@lists.berlios.de</a>]
On
Behalf
Of
Rob
Lanphier<br>Sent:
Monday,
March
17,
2008
6:25
PM<br>To:
Ryan
McDougall<br>Cc:
Second
Life
Developer
Mailing
List;
<a ymailto="mailto:opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de" href="mailto:opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de">opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de</a><br>Subject:
[Opensim-dev]
Violating
the
GPL
by
looking
(Re:
Voice
Module)<br><br>On
3/16/08
9:01
PM,
Ryan
McDougall
wrote:<br>>
The
issue
is
_not_
reading
any
form
of
GPL
then
whistling
dixie;
the<br>>
issue
is
reading
SL's
client
viewer
and
writing
BSD
code
for
a
related<br>>
project,
OpenSim.<br>><br>>
It
creates
a
situation
where
you
can
be
accused
to
violating
the
GPL<br>>
by
trans-coding,
intentionally
or
not,
SL
viewer
code
from
GPL
to
BSD,<br>>
and
open
up
a
small
community
to
a
legal
dark
cloud.<br>><br>>
Me
personally,
I'm
not
a
big
fan
of
that
interpretation,
but
its
one<br>>
upheld
by
US
court
case
law,
risk-averse
corporate
lawyers
for
a
major<br>>
3-letter
computer
company,
and
more
importantly
risk-averse
OpenSim<br>>
core
developers.<br>><br>>
If
LL
wanted
to
clarify
the
situation,
they're
welcome
to
draw
up
a<br>>
covenant
not
to
sue
OpenSim
or
its
developers
over
the
matter.
That's<br>>
by
far
my
favorite
option.<br>><br>><br><br>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?<br><br>Rob<br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Opensim-dev
mailing
list<br><a ymailto="mailto:Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de" href="mailto:Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de">Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de</a><br><a href="https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev</a><br></div><br></div></div><br>
<hr size=1>Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. <a href="http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ "> Try it now.</a></body></html>