This is very very weak grounds for any sort of lawsuit.
But if having glanced at GPL source code prevents implementing similar functionalities in an entirely different language, that's a pretty darn strong argument for me to never look at GPL code again.
Your lawyers are peddling FUD because they make money that way. "Hey, it looks like you need another legal agreement, can't be too safe!" The reality is that an "unintentional copying" claim against source code makes for a very weak lawsuit and it's close to unimaginable that such a case would even make it into a court room.
You're free to read whatever you like. Don't let anybody tell you otherwise.
You're giving a lot of strongly-worded advice/opinions on legal issues in this thread. Are you a lawyer? Can you point to any case-law to back up what you're saying?
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't really know who's right in this thread, but I'd find any citations you have really interesting to read.
Here's an crazy thought: when lawyers are in court, one of them is always wrong. Imagine that. A lawyer being wrong. Mind blown. Is your lawyer a software engineer? If not, he doesn't know anything! He has literally no idea. He can't even comprehend software. It would melt his brain.
So you ask, how can I the holder of meagre so-called "Computer Science PhD", comprehend the the holy (and unspeakable) knowledge of those who have spent an unimaginable three years studying law? Who am I to question our very gods? Well, sir, I give you "The Wikipedia":
Perhaps we should have it destroyed for spreading the "unspeakable" knowledge, rightfully known only by our lawyer-priests and spoken amongst them in their own tongue.
Wow... No one said lawyers can't be wrong, but the law is complex, and if you haven't studied it, it's a pretty good bet you don't really understand all the details. It's pretty funny to see you belittle lawyers in the same paragraph you say any lawyer's mind would melt by the complexity of software. Having a PhD in CS doesn't make you an expert in the law, the economy, or any other field unrelated to CS.
I was going to respond to the wikipedia article, but I'm realizing that would be a waste of my time. Good luck with your crusade against the almighty lawyer-priests.
OT, but that one side loses doesn't mean they're wrong, just like if one side loses a battle doesn't mean they don't know how to fight. It might just mean that the other side was better; or got lucky.
> Your lawyers are peddling FUD because they make money that way.
No, the SFLC works pro-bono.
> You're free to read whatever you like.
I wish that were true, but many current laws say otherwise. You do not sound like you are aware of those laws, so I take it you're not a lawyer. You're just hoping the world is as free as you say it is. I wish it were too, but we have to be pragmatic and work in the world we have while we strive for the world we want.
Sigh... I feel like I'm not getting through to you here. Yes your layer works pro-bono but the rest of the time he works for money, and his entire conception of legal advice revolves around that. What's good for the goose is good for the gander: Your lawyer isn't paid to understand the law. He's paid to protect you from other lawyers. And other lawyers peddle FUD, so your lawyer has to protect you against FUD. Of course he's going to advise you to protect yourself! And if you've got an aggressive adversary, then you probably should.
But you don't need to protect yourself. You're legally allowed to read stuff and write something similar. Just don't copy it.
> I wish that were true, but many current laws say otherwise
I'm going to disregard this statement (and it's conspicuous lack of citations) because you're not a lawyer :)
> You're just hoping the world is as free as you say it is.
No, I'm just reading Wikipedia:
Clean room design is usually employed as best practice,
but not strictly required by law.
Can you guarantee that you will never write a piece of software under a non-GPL license for the rest of your life? I certainly can't and I suspect that few programmers other than RMS can.
But if having glanced at GPL source code prevents implementing similar functionalities in an entirely different language, that's a pretty darn strong argument for me to never look at GPL code again.