Rolf wrote:bob wrote:Rolf wrote:arturo100 wrote:
Ed Schroder, who even sued him.
It's beyond reasonable thhinking why sueing someone
without evidence is seen as a good idea.
Actually we have the same scenario with the CCC and its actual hate campaign against Vas Rybka. They campaign allegedly having evidence but refuse to sue because they know of the sad outcome of e.g. Ed in the earlier days. Even
with sort of evidence the outcome is unclear. The charter of CCC normally forbids such libel. But why respecting it if it's so much fun to chase a scapegoat from anonymity.
So, this is the solution for the question why CCC was founded out of rgcc in usenet. Here it's possible to defamate the resident scapegoat without that this same scapegoat could strike back, which was a very annoying possibility on usenet. So that people who thought they owned extra rights felt deceived through the democratic openess of usenet. Only after this became clear on CCC when the same special people tried to practice their extra rights on CCC, it was thanks to democrats like Sam Hull who reveiled the mechanism of extra righting. They left after losing their status after being caught in the act of such a wrondoing. Being educated by the famous Popper dict that democracy is only possible in open groups and societies and that this means in the USA the truth will always re-appear even if it was hidden beneath stones.
If you are going to post, either post factually or go somewhere else. I can't sue because I have no legal standing to do so. It isn't because I am afraid I would lose, or I am afraid we do not have enough data. It is because I simply have "no legal standing".
It really is that simple. So stop insinuating something else. It is plainly and simply false...
As far as "the truth re-appearing" it would seem you are correct with respect to fruit/rybka, because it does keep coming back. There _is_ truth in the accusations...
Bob, I hope you are not making the same mistake as the others here. I dont argue on the base of a damage you couldnt claim, this is British Law and perhaps even American Law too.
But I argue on a different basis. If your argument with the GPL is correct, then it is a violation under the condition that you could really prove it and it's relevant in a legal sense. Then you wouldnt have to sue because you have a damage but because you claim a legal violation in the field of computerchess.
The FSF is the entity with legal standing to sue. They are the "caretakers" of GPL code. Again, not me, them. Whether Fabien will choose to prod them into action or not, I don't know...
Why else did you always (for 5 years now) tell such negative accusations against Rybka? If it wouldnt matter in a legal sense from your perspective? I repeat, you never had the intention to sue but you are sure there is a violation of legal points and therefore you repeated your attacks or negative talk. Is that correct? Then my question why did you do it?
As a scientist, I do not claim that I did things that I did not do. I do not fabricate/falsify data. I do not take the work of others and claim it as my own. When someone does this (and Vas is hardly the first, I can name a dozen different occasions where someone has done the same to Crafty) it deserves to be exposed, because of all the other engine authors that expended the effort and time required to produce a functional chess program. For me, it is more about "ethics" than "legality" although the latter could certainly be an issue, even though the legal question is not one most would care to pursue because of time and money required to do so.
I do not keep bringing this issue up. In fact, you cause the discussion to live far longer than it normally would, by jumping into these threads and making baseless accusations with no supporting evidence.
Ok, if you can prove me wrong in my description of what happened then please correct me. But to insinuate I wouldnt have the facts straight is not so nice. To the contrary, I still find it a somewhat false attitude to accuse someone of a legal wrong, but you dont give it to the authorities.
I certainly believe that an unethical thing has happened. And with the GPL, there is also likely a clear violation. Whether the GPL is a legal issue or a civil issue is not one I can answer.
I learned in our justice system in Europe, more the Continent not British Isles, that if no sue is being undertaken and for all no judge has given a verdict, then someone is completely innocent even if you always continue to blame the guy. This is a basic of European Law. You cant have it both ways. You dont sue someone but still call him guilty of a wrongdoing. He is and remains innocent.
That is completely false. "innocence" is a condition of fact, not of law. "proven guilty" or "proven not-guilty_ is a statement of law. You can be found guilty, but be completely innocent. You can be found not guilty, while being guilty as sin.
The terms have a distinct meaning. A court of law does not find someone "innocent". Many have a "presumption of innocence" which means simply that they _assume_ you are innocent and the burden is on the state to prove that you are guilty. But after the trial, you don't get a verdict of "innocent". Just "not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." They are not the same thing. And there is nothing wrong in searching for the truth, whether it is ever prosecuted or not.
And if Fabien sues Vas and cant win a court trial, then Vas remains perfectly innocent.
No, he would only be found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. He's clearly not innocent, based on facts. Whether there are enough facts to prove him guilty in a court of law is the only question.