[sldev] Fwd: [Opensim-dev] Violating the GPL by looking (Re: Voice Module)

[Tateru Nino]

Deryck Hodge wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 2:17 AM, Callum Lerwick <seg at haxxed.com> wrote:
>   
>>  On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 07:54 +0200, Jani Pirkola wrote:
>>  > Google "inevitable disclosure". This is the direction case law is
>>  > heading towards, sadly.
>>
>>  I just did. First hit is this:
>>
>>  http://www.ivanhoffman.com/inevitable.html
>>     
>
> Hi, all.
>
> Sorry to jump in here late in the discussion.  I'm relatively new to
> this list, too. However, I"d like to ask -- what is the issue being
> discussed in all of this? I got a little lost. :-)
>
> Is the issue that someone, just by looking at LL's open source GPL
> code, would be legally liable if he/she worked on OpenSim because
> OpenSim is BSD? If that's the fear, I would like to suggest that the
> license can only apply to derivative code, not derivative knowledge.
>
> I'm certainly no lawyer, but I have heard very knowledgeable lawyers
> and very knowledgeable developers in legal matters talk at length
> about this. The GPL clearly protects code, not knowledge.
>
> I know this is a fine line, and maybe it's that line that is being
> discussed here. But when I see things suggesting that someone who has
> just looked at GPL code will be barred from contributing to
> BSD-licensed code, just because of some supposed tainted knowledge,
> that seems an inaccurate reading of the protections the GPL offers.
>   
Essentially correct, yes. The issue is derived code.

However take SCO vs (well, everyone) as an example. In a limited grammar 
there are limited ways to express algorithms.

If two products to perform a given task X contain pieces of otherwise 
identical code with no possibility of contamination between products, 
well that happens.

If two products to perform a given task X contain pieces of otherwise 
identical code, and those pieces of matching code in B were contributed 
by someone who was exposed to the code from A, then lawyers start 
sharpening their briefcases - or whatever basically 'girding' activities 
the legal profession actively performs.

Who is the burden of proof on, in this case?

-- 
Tateru Nino
http://www.massively.com/