Obligatory disclaimer: I am not a copyright lawyer. Steve Schveighoffer wrote:
Having viewed source or online docs that can contain source isn't enough to prove copyright infringement.
That is correct.
However, Walter's position is that if you don't look at others' source, the opposition doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Yes.
While this is true, *looking* at the other project's source does not mean you infringed on it.
That's also correct. The problem is, then the issue becomes having an independent expert witness go through the allegedly infringing code line by line and deliver an opinion on whether it infringes or not, and if the judge & jury buy one side's expert witness or the other side's. Even if you win, there's the lingering bad reputation. (Ask anyone who's been acquitted at trial.) Boo on that.
Having some taint and lingering suspicions of infringement for hobby software is not a big issue, but for software to be accepted for professional use, professionals absolutely will not take the risk of betting their companies and reputations on software with an iffy legal status. D and Phobos must be absolutely clean in this regard.
For a notorious example of the trouble this kind of thing can cause, just look at the ongoing Linux vs SCO wars in court.
In the time lib case, I believe SHOO is perfectly fine how he mimicked the Tango API (it's not exactly mimicked, but close enough that Tango devs think it's copying). But Walter has his position, and will not bring the confrontation to a head, so those are the rules we have to live by.
I'm very sorry that SHOO got caught in the gears of this licensing issue. I apologize to him, and I sincerely hope this experience will not dissuade him from continuing to contribute to D.
_______________________________________________ phobos mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
