FSF, Fabien,Fruit 2.1-Rybka Beta1 and the LAW-Read This

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Dann Corbit, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
User avatar
Rolf
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: Munster, Nuremberg, Princeton

Re: FSF, Fabien,Fruit 2.1-Rybka Beta1 and the LAW-Read This

Post by Rolf » Sun Feb 13, 2011 10:16 am

bob wrote: I have said many times that the only person that can bring a suit is the person that owns the copyright. When Fabien assigned it to the FSF, it became theirs. If it was copied prior to that point, then Fabien would be the only person with legal standing to bring a suit. That much this "judge" got right. It would not be "impossible" to explicitly show what was copied. And clearly "fair use" does not apply when one sells the copy...
Two critical pointsa. Trials afford formal exactness e.g. some conditions about schedules. Science and its practical application affords consistency. It makes no sense to scapegoat someone with a bias while letting unexamined others. If a whole scene is scenario of the best copy art prosecution is useless.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz

Ant_Gugdin
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 8:13 pm

Re: FSF, Fabien,Fruit 2.1-Rybka Beta1 and the LAW-Read This

Post by Ant_Gugdin » Sun Feb 13, 2011 1:24 pm

Hi George

This seems to be the crucial passage from your post:
geots wrote:Not being critical of anyone here, but the judge told me the biggest mistake made was by Fabien when he put the code out there- then tried to argue exactly how much could and could not be taken from it. He said any judge anywhere- hear or overseas- is very very likely to scrutnize the fact that Fabien put any of it out to begin with- why he did.
I can't understand this.

Fabien released the code under the GPL. The GPL sets out the scope of his permission to use the code. If someone used the code without abiding by the terms of the GPL, they can potentially be sued.

Is your friend saying that it is always a "big mistake" to release code under GPL - because ,even if someone uses the code in violation of the GPL, a judge is "very, very likely to scrutinize the fact that the code was put out to begin with"? In other words, the act of releasing the code gives the rest of the world some sort of implied permission to violate the terms under which it was released??

The date when he assigned his rights to the FSF may affect who would sue Vas but it will not affect the question of whether there are grounds to sue in the first place.
Assuming it was filed in the United States. He said it would be very difficult to prove in a court of law in the USA EXACTLY how much was too much of the code for someone to take.
I don't think anyone's saying it would be an easy case.[/code]

User avatar
Rolf
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: Munster, Nuremberg, Princeton

Re: FSF, Fabien,Fruit 2.1-Rybka Beta1 and the LAW-Read This

Post by Rolf » Sun Feb 13, 2011 2:15 pm

Ant_Gugdin wrote: Fabien released the code under the GPL. The GPL sets out the scope of his permission to use the code. If someone used the code without abiding by the terms of the GPL, they can potentially be sued.

Is your friend saying that it is always a "big mistake" to release code under GPL -
There is another hot question. Since it's known that Fabien did not at all had the following history (first always closed source and then directly open source with GPL) question should be when exactly and from what moment to what exact end date what was indicated by the decision GPL. IMO this point is making any hopes for a case right now in 2011 rather improbable. If you want to know the exact history of the version of Fruit which is relevant, please go into the history of Fabiens past for yourself. It's not overemphasising to conclude that Fabien had a sort of confusional method in his handling before he abruptly disappeared for five long years. For what source the brave campaigning mouscatiers want to prove the forbidden act by Vas? Ok, take this with a deserved care because I am neither a historian nor Fabien himself, ahem, nor a judge, barrister, BB++ or Bob. ;)
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz

Roger Brown
Posts: 782
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:22 pm

Re: FSF, Fabien,Fruit 2.1-Rybka Beta1 and the LAW-Read This

Post by Roger Brown » Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:22 pm

Rolf wrote: There is another hot question. Since it's known that Fabien did not at all had the following history (first always closed source and then directly open source with GPL) question should be when exactly and from what moment to what exact end date what was indicated by the decision GPL. IMO this point is making any hopes for a case right now in 2011 rather improbable. If you want to know the exact history of the version of Fruit which is relevant, please go into the history of Fabiens past for yourself. It's not overemphasising to conclude that Fabien had a sort of confusional method in his handling before he abruptly disappeared for five long years. For what source the brave campaigning mouscatiers want to prove the forbidden act by Vas? Ok, take this with a deserved care because I am neither a historian nor Fabien himself, ahem, nor a judge, barrister, BB++ or Bob. ;)



Hello Rolf,

I have bolded a part of your quote above.

Please explain what you meant there.

Sooner rather than later would be good....

Later.

User avatar
Dr.Wael Deeb
Posts: 9773
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:44 pm
Location: Amman,Jordan

Re: FSF, Fabien,Fruit 2.1-Rybka Beta1 and the LAW-Read This

Post by Dr.Wael Deeb » Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:46 pm

Roger Brown wrote:
Rolf wrote: There is another hot question. Since it's known that Fabien did not at all had the following history (first always closed source and then directly open source with GPL) question should be when exactly and from what moment to what exact end date what was indicated by the decision GPL. IMO this point is making any hopes for a case right now in 2011 rather improbable. If you want to know the exact history of the version of Fruit which is relevant, please go into the history of Fabiens past for yourself. It's not overemphasising to conclude that Fabien had a sort of confusional method in his handling before he abruptly disappeared for five long years. For what source the brave campaigning mouscatiers want to prove the forbidden act by Vas? Ok, take this with a deserved care because I am neither a historian nor Fabien himself, ahem, nor a judge, barrister, BB++ or Bob. ;)



Hello Rolf,

I have bolded a part of your quote above.

Please explain what you meant there.

Sooner rather than later would be good....

Later.
Believe me Roger,
most of the time this delutional guy doesn't know what he's talking about....
His English is weird and his character is so screwed up....

Point is,don't waste your time with him....
Dr.D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….

User avatar
Rolf
Posts: 6081
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:14 pm
Location: Munster, Nuremberg, Princeton

Re: FSF, Fabien,Fruit 2.1-Rybka Beta1 and the LAW-Read This

Post by Rolf » Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:51 pm

Roger Brown wrote:
Rolf wrote: There is another hot question. Since it's known that Fabien did not at all had the following history (first always closed source and then directly open source with GPL) question should be when exactly and from what moment to what exact end date what was indicated by the decision GPL. IMO this point is making any hopes for a case right now in 2011 rather improbable. If you want to know the exact history of the version of Fruit which is relevant, please go into the history of Fabiens past for yourself.


Fabiens past? Perhaps this is a double talk. What I meant is just the succeeding periods of different handling of the program. I dont have the quote at hand but I recall a short description of the history. What remained in my memory is the difference of opposing or just different handling. First selling, then if I have this correct it was free and then it was GPL and still is.

What is your exact question. What I did NOT mean or insinuate, something of a whatever "past" in his history that could be special in a different sense from the pure software handling. This what I meant. Is that ok with you? I hope that weaker English does NOT violate any point of the charter or such. What I meant here is all too clear. If something had been taken for free then a GPL note should not be a question.

Regards

P.S.
Please dont use special tone in your addressing me, you can ask all questions and I will answer them. No need to imply as if I wouldnt want to answer in time. Ok?
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz

Post Reply