That is true.  However, the copyright holders will be required to go after
ALL infringing derivative works if they decided to come after me in this
case, as copyright is only upheld (in the US) if it is equally enforced
(patents, on the other hand, may be selectively enforced.)  Further, the
code I am writing is substantially different in architecture.  What may be
similar could be some of the algorithms used but which I have not had a
chance to evaluate.

I consider the license of this code to be of little importance to me as no
one has ever gained profit from it, shown interest in doing so, or made
plans to do so.  When there is no money involved, there is little incentive
for people to throw a fit.  The worst that could happen is that someone
forces me to change the license to the GPL.  Makes no difference to me.  The
only reason I am not GPL-ing it is because GPL is too restrictive - there
may be bits of my code which someone DOES find commercially viable, and they
will be welcome to use it and modify it, as long as I don't have to give up
my license to my own code in the process.

-----Original Message-----
From: netrek-dev-bounces at
[mailto:netrek-dev-bounces at] On Behalf Of Trent Piepho
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 7:10 PM
To: Netrek Development Mailing List
Subject: Re: [netrek-dev] Windows C# client

On Mon, 9 Apr 2007, ChronosWS wrote:
> I was unclear when I made my statement.  By 'clean' I meant the code was
> being rewritten from scratch.  I am using the Netrek XP 2006 v1.2 codebase
> as a reference for the protocol and behaviors, but not using the code.
> new code will be released under BSD with proper attribution.  Sorry for
> confusion.  Appropriate files will be checked into source control shortly.

The copyright holders of the code you are using as a reference as you write
"new" code could claim your code is a derived work.  If there is any
similarity, they can say that is evidence that you copied from them, and
since you had their original in hand as you wrote it, they would have a
very good case.

This is the point of a clean room re-implementation.  Never having seen the
original code is a very good argument that you didn't copy it.

There was recently a big to-do about a Linux broadcom wireless driver being
plagerized to make a freebsd driver.  The argument that once the
cut-and-pasted code from the Linux driver was "removed" it would be an
original BSD licensed work free of the GPL is utter BS.  When you
cut-and-paste someone else's work into yours, it's a dervied work.  Change
the variable names and it's still a derived work.  Go through the code line
by line and _change_ it so it looks different, and it's still a derived

netrek-dev mailing list
netrek-dev at