I was scanning the 9/13/2006 issue of the "Electronic Commerce & Law Report," which is a newsletter for lawyers published by BNA. They have an article headlined "Game Developers Making Tomorrow's Hits Face Host of Copyright Issues Along the Way," and the article is mostly a writeup of a speech given by Paul Tauger, identified as "an IP attorney with Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP, San Francisco." It contains this final paragraph:
"Be Careful Using Open Source Tools. Game developers are under constant pressure to deliver games under tight deadlines. Open source software tools can help speed the development process, but may carry with them certain legal risks, Tauger explained. One open source tool popular with the game development community is Python. Unfortunately, the Python Software Foundation's license agreement leaves a lot of unanswered questions about the origin and precise ownership of the tool's code. The license refers to six separate entities that, at one point or another, contributed to the tool's development. PSF's license disclaims any warranties of non-infringement and disavows any indemnification obligation. In theory, if some aspect of Python was deemed to infringe copyrighted code, it could create legal headaches for game developers who rely upon the tool to build certain parts of their games. 'Be aware of the risks attendant,' Tauger said." (page 914) What is our response? Is the PSF that much different from any other open source license? Can anyone identify everyone who ever contributed to the Linux source code? Does ANY free "tool" indemnify people? In fact, does Microsoft indemnify Visual Studio users against the risk that one day the BASIC language will be found to have been infringing a patent all along? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
