[sldev] Re: [PROTOCOL] Protocol Documentation

[Argent Stonecutter]

On 03-Oct-2007, at 17:40, Taran Rampersad wrote:
> Seeing how a GPL piece of code works and replicating it on one's  
> own is not likely to be a copyright violation, or abuse of the GPL  
> itself. The trouble is with demonstrating to LAWYERS and COURTS  
> that you didn't steal the code, and really every possible software  
> license has the same problem.

It's only a problem if there is the appearance that you violated the  
license when you allegedly copied it.

If the software is BSD or MIT licensed, copying the code and  
incorporating it into your product does not violate the license,  
unless you remove the copyright notices... and that has been an issue  
on occasion for some bizarre reason... but conforming to the license  
is trivial, therefore these licenses don't cause a problem.

If the software is LGPL, then using it in your product does not  
violate the license as long as you conform to the LGPL for that  
component. It doesn't restrict how the rest of the product is licensed.

The Microsoft Permissive License is somewhere in the middle between  
the LGPL and the BSDL... it applies to the specific source files, not  
the work as a whole.

There are commercial licenses that specifically exclude code derived  
from the API (say, code created by examining include files). These  
can also be used as a documentation format without opening up the  
possibility of this situation.

So if the code was released under one of these licenses it would not  
create a situation where someone using the code as documentation  
would automatically be at risk of being placed in a position where  
they had to defend their work. The original voice API license,  
Microsoft's license on some of their documentation, all have similar  
issues. That is, there are licenses that create a problem for open  
systems use, and ones that don't. The GPL happens to be one that does.