Ugly Huge BSD Monster

[Terry Lambert]

Rahul Siddharthan wrote:
> Brett Glass wrote:
> > If you view GPLed code, and then write something similar, you are
> > open to claims that your work is derivative of the GPLed code and
> > therefore must likewise be GPLed.

This is what I thought he was aiming at...


> You are open to the same sort of claims if you view closed-source code
> (under, say, an NDA, or in a book where the authors have not
> relinquished copyright for the code).

The answer to this is "don't look at code not under an acceptable
commercial-use friendly public license".


> However, with the GPL, the FSF or whoever owns the copyrights will be
> satisfied if you remove the offending code fragments: in fact if they
> are small innocuous-looking chunks nobody's likely to pursue you.

So, for example, if SCO or IBM owned the copyright... you'd be safe,
right?  8-) 8-).


> That said, we live in a litigious world, and if some nasty person really
> wants to sue you on flippant copyright or patent violation or other
> grounds (like SCO), you must have deep pockets (like IBM).  Of all
> organisations in the world, be assured that the FSF is the least likely
> to sue you for anything less than brazen cut-and-pasting of entire
> programs, despite your personal vendetta against them.

What about if the GPL'ed code came from SCO or IBM, granting that
SCO is litigious, and IBM has deep pockets?

-- Terry