What a fine debate Armel and Alan have given to us!
I can agree with Alan's point that the CCDC would want a slice of the money that Crystal Impact would receive. But Crystal Impact's statements didn't mention fiduciary gain being an issue. I don't know if they accurately describe the situation, but would hope they would be crafty enough to release a "free plugin" or to follow Alan's suggestion of offering a modest sum to the CCDC for the value derived from their data. Or even offer to introduce Dr. Hoffman's work into CCDC's competing products. Because it is also derived work, the CCDC may also have a problem with Dr. Hoffman publishing the potential (especially if it was a thinly veiled attempt to get around this conflict). I would sincerely hope that such work could enter the literature, but there is nothing forcing the CCDC to allow this.
In any case, we should all learn a lesson from the effort Crystal Impact has apparently wasted developing functionality that they can't release: read those EULAs. If there is any question, ask it before you develop!
--Richard Karnesky
