Comments on: Looks like I’m infected

By: Brooks Moses

Brooks Moses — Sat, 25 Oct 2003 00:36:19 +0000

Personally, I’d be very disturbed if that particular “you may use what you remember of this after you look at it clause” were of any legal significance … by which I mean, if any attempt to enforce the opposite (were it to not be included) would stand up in court, unless there were a very explicitly signed NDA stating otherwise.

I do admit that there are a number of things in recent IP law that I find very disturbing, but I’d find that one considerably moreso than most. Would it imply that, if I read Dr. Such-and-so’s paper on a numerical method (including sample source code), then he can sue me for using an implementation of it, unless the paper included an explicit license that I could use it? I can’t see that that hypothetical situation would be any different from this Microsoft case.

By: Marc

Marc — Fri, 24 Oct 2003 19:32:35 +0000

I vaguely remember reading when windows source was first released for academic use one of the the talking points on it was that using it wouldn’t “contaminate” you. I don’t remember the details at all though.

By: Chris Hanson

Chris Hanson — Thu, 23 Oct 2003 18:19:33 +0000

Actually, I would take the comments of one random Microsoft employee as company policy if he said “Microsoft’s policy is …” That’s just what he did. I’ll see if I can find it in the IMAP mailing list archives, if anyone cares.

I’m also glad to see the “intangibles” clause in the Rotor license. I’m going to update my post with that information. It makes me rest much easier about Rotor, though not about academic and corporate use of Windows NT kernel source. (I’d have to see if the clause is in that license as well, and I’m not sure the license is public.)

I wonder how the FSF would feel about adding such a clause to the GPL. They probably like the vagueness…