[sldev] Re: [PROTOCOL] Protocol Documentation

[dirk husemann]

Argent Stonecutter wrote:
> 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.
> [...]
>
> 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.
i'd phrase that as "there are licenses where you might have to show that
you didn't copy and ones where you don't" --- except, as we have seen
with SCO you have ALWAYS the possibility of a greedy fool trying to
attack you anyhow (e.g., claiming that the code you used was stolen from
him, don't mind the BSD/GPL/whatever license).

so, in essence: there's always a risk --- which kind of levels the
playing field a bit...

-- 
dr dirk husemann, pervasive computing, ibm zurich research lab
--- hud at zurich.ibm.com --- +41 44 724 8573 --- SL: dr scofield