<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>You lost me there. Inevitable disclosure deals with non-competes
and trade secrets. How is that related to how the GPL and BSD
licenses apply to code? In both cases the code is in the “open”.
So it’s clearly not secret anything. That’s part of the point of
these licenses. Also non-competes are enforceable (well, in some states
they are) contracts signed between an employer and employee, usually for
compensation.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>It’s really sad that creative projects get held hostage by
FUD, especially open projects that should be based on collaboration. BTW,
I do understand the pros and cons of BSD vs. GPL and why they aren’t
compatible. I like the BSD license, so I’m not arguing for a
change. I guess at some level I’m not arguing at all, the project contributors
can agree to anything they wish. As it stands now I couldn’t
contribute because I’ve looked at some of the offending code.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>One other interesting element, I’ve heard a number of
arguments that sticking to protocols keeps things “safe”. Why would
you assume that? Protocols are licensable the same as code. Or at least
they’ve been licensed before. You could easily argue the protocol is the
real trade secret and more related to inevitable disclosure that any specific
(and especially open) implementation of it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>This is the last from me on this topic. Clearly the
project can adopt any guidelines it wishes. I just think it’s a shame
that contributions are being restricted or you’re looking for some sort
of blanket indemnification to allow broader contributions. At least that’s
my perception of the problem, I’m correctable if wrong.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Mike<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> opensim-dev-bounces@lists.berlios.de
[mailto:opensim-dev-bounces@lists.berlios.de] <b>On Behalf Of </b>David Wendt
JR.<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, March 18, 2008 10:38 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Opensim-dev] Violating the GPL by looking (Re: Voice
Module)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:
12.0pt;margin-left:.5in'>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>----- 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 href="mailto:opensim-dev-bounces@lists.berlios.de">opensim-dev-bounces@lists.berlios.de</a>
[mailto:<a 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
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 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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='margin-left:.5in;text-align:center'>
<hr size=1 width="100%" align=center>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-left:.5in'>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%20">Try
it now.</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>