[sldev] Re: [Opensim-dev] Violating the GPL by looking (Re: VoiceModule)

[Thomas Rowland]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sldev-bounces at lists.secondlife.com 
> [mailto:sldev-bounces at lists.secondlife.com] On Behalf Of Paul 
> Oppenheim (Poppy Linden)
> Sent: 19 March 2008 19:39
> To: Ryan McDougall
> Cc: Second Life Developer Mailing List; opensim-dev at lists.berlios.de
> Subject: Re: [sldev] Re: [Opensim-dev] Violating the GPL by 
> looking (Re: VoiceModule)
> 
> 
> Ryan McDougall wrote:
> > ----- "Charles Krinke" <cfk at pacbell.net> wrote:
> >> We would welcome support and contributions of code as long as they 
> >> fit within the structure set up.
> > 
> > Thats not true, since anyone from Open Second Life has been Tainted 
> > and is unable to participate in Open Sim. It sucks if your 
> first patch 
> > happened to be fore Second Life, because now you will never 
> be able to 
> > participate in Open Sim.
> 
> That's a harsh statement, and I'd be interested in getting to 
> the bottom of it.
> 

I'm no legal mind, but I think it's pretty obvious to me;

If group A has code in its release submitted by party X, & group B thinks
that the code is from/derived from theirs
(and this happens to be just by coincidence on the part of group A, party X)
and if B wants to sue A over this matter
(mainly because A's licence allows for closed source use and B's does not)
If Party X submitted to group B first, it is going to be a lot harder
for group A to prove that the code is not B's code or a derivative of it.

So my opinion is group A is probably right, the less involvement with group
B, 
the more deniability (I think that's what they call it).

Hopefully group B, with its 'own currency' based economics, will see group A
as a benefit to it
However I could not properly comment.
Not only because I am in no real position to comment on B (or A), but also
because I cannot
say if/when B sees it's income loosing out to group A's world if it
will/wont get nasty.