<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;">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.<br><br>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.<br><br><div style="font-family: times new roman,new york,times,serif; font-size: 12pt;">----- Original Message ----<br>From: dan miller <danbmil99@yahoo.com><br>To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<br>Sent: Wednesday,
March 19, 2008 3:18:27 PM<br>Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Violating the GPL by looking (Re: Voice Module)<br><br>
<br>---
dan
miller
<<a ymailto="mailto:danbmil99@yahoo.com" href="mailto:danbmil99@yahoo.com">danbmil99@yahoo.com</a>>
wrote:<br><br>>
>
What
it
boils
down
to,
though?
This
discussion
is
simply
more
fear,<br>>
>
uncertainty,
and
doubt
thrown
at
the
viability
of
the
GPL
for
anything<br>>
>
at
all.<br>> <br>>
Absolutely.
It's
FUD,
and
FUD
is
causing
self-censorship
--
that's
why<br>>
this<br>>
sticks
in
my
craw.<br>> <br>>
>
The
only
possible
monkeywrench
is
patent
infringement,
but
I
don't<br>>
>
know
if
any
patent
filing
has
actually
occurred
on
anything
that<br>>
>
Linden's
employees
may
have
invented.
(I
can't
find
any,
but
that<br>>
>
doesn't
mean
anything.)<br>> <br>>
That's
exactly
why
a
big-company
attorney
would
give
this
sort
of
advice. <br>>
We
can't
know
if
there
are
any
Linden
patent
filings
out
there,
or
what<br>>
Linden's
stance
might
be.
Therefore,
the
big
companies
who
are
interested<br>>
in
opensim
(I
have
no
doubt
that
an
opinion
from
one
of
their
overpaid<br>>
hacks<br>>
is
the
genesis
of
this
'rule')
are
taking
an
absurdly
cautionary
stance
by<br>>
insisting
that
no
opensim
programmers
can
ever
be
exposed
to
the
SL
viewer<br>>
source.<br>> <br>>
What
is
patently
ridiculous
(ha!)
about
all
this
is,
the
problem
could<br>>
still<br>>
exist
if
Linden
released
their
viewer
under
a
BSD
license.
They
could<br>>
still<br>>
have
a
patent;
they
could
still
claim
'residual
information'
or<br>>
'inevitable<br>>
disclosure'
with
respect
to
programmers
who
confess
to
having
read
said<br>>
code.
The
reason
GPL
rears
its
ugly
head
is
that
it
explicitly
states<br>>
that
you
can't
let
your
patents
restrict
other's
GPL
rights.
Note
however<br>>
that
letting
some
of
these
patent
rights
slip
into
a
BSD
project
*does<br>>
not*<br>>
restrict
anyone's
right
to
use
the
GPL
code,
nor
does
it
go
afowl
of
GPL<br>>
because
there
is
no
code
copying!
(I
shoulda
been
a
lawyer..)<br>> <br>>
What
makes
it
triply
ridiculous
is
that
a
lawsuit
could
easily
transpire<br>>
anyway,
with
a
claim
that
some
programmer
is
lying
about
having
read
the<br>>
code.
Inevitable
Disclosure
involves
trade
secrets
and
confidentiality<br>>
agreements,
where
it
is
clear
who
had
access
and
who
didn't.
Having<br>>
programmers
(whose
r/l
identities
we
often
don't
even
know)
pledge
on
IRC<br>>
or<br>>
email
that
they
never
looked
at
code
that
is
right
out
there
for
anyone
to<br>>
anonymously
download,
is
very
unlikely
to
hold
up
in
a
court
case.<br>> <br>>
So
the
whole
thing
remains...
just
silly,
IMSHO.<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>