ICC + timestamp

[JoshPettus]

Fair enough. I should add the readme.txt as well. I'll get right on that.

[mvk]

Because it's Timestamp. It's from ICC either way. Even if it were some reverse engineering, done by the author of the app. (i highly doubt, more likely they got in contact with ICC) ICC's control takes precedent.

It would be just the same as if i took some x86 compilation of fruit.

So you took the liberty to "infer a license", in the absence of an actual license.

I find NO license agreement from ICC.

So you agree: there is no license agreement by ICC which says that this MacOS x86 binary is theirs, and that it can be distributed with winboard.

They simply have a directory with lots of different executables.

Nice, but not the MacOS x86 executable we are talking about here. We have no idea what it is and where it came from yet. We do know it is not provided by ICC at the moment.

I think it safe to assume he is not violating any sort of license since there doesn't appear to be one.

In absence of an explicit licence, it is safe to assume that copyright applies, as by the Bern convention. That means that the right to distribute the work is reserved for the author. You need a license to distribute it if you're not the author.

Several GUI authors distribute timestamp with their code, further validating this.

Serious...

[mvk]

I haven't seen one either, and thus I can only infer from what everyone else is doing.

Why would it be in the interest of ICC to put a limit on timestamp? They are a tellnet server, though they have their Official GUI that isn't their goal. The more have access to them the better for them.

I'm not an ICC spokesperson, and even if I were, I wouldn't go into such arguments.

Simplest is just to ask ICC if the MacOS x86 binary you found (1) originates with them, and if yes, (2) ask permission to distribute it with winboard? (and maybe (3) to put it on their own site as well). That would solve it without hassle. Now, the legal status seems not as good it should be.

Second what do you mean about GPL with fruit? By all means, please correct me if I'm wrong here. How would distributing it with xboard be against it's License?

Fruit 2.1 carries a GPL license with it. Therefore the GPL is the licence that says how you can re-distribute it yourself. Amongst others, it means that you must (1) provide the sources of the project in which you embedded fruit and (2) release the whole work under GPL yourself. I don't see the sources in the Winboard 4.7.3a .dmg, and I don't see the GPL itself in it as well (I looked for a file name 'COPYING'). So I somewhat doubt if this package meets the requirements for re-distributing Fruit 2.1.

[JoshPettus]

As far as the winboard 4.7.3a app is concerned, it is just an install of the windows application inside a wineskin wrapper. You will find all the legal documentation for fruit right next to the fruit executable inside the app package. In the readme.txt, there is a link to where the sources can be obtained (Which most would agree is sufficient). If you feel this is not appropriate, please be sure to take it up with HGM and Arun. This is the best logical way I can do it given the way app bundles are laid out and I highly doubt anyone will throw a fuss.

Unless you mean the xboard.app. Yah I'm fixing that as soon as I can. There is some other things I have to make sure is covered as well. For instance in my current build on my computer, I have a new OSX theme for GTK2 id like to use, and see if the author minds if I use it. I guess I'll take the old one down in the mean time while I'm waiting to show good faith.

[mvk]

Unless you mean the xboard.app.

Yes, that is the .dmg I meant: there was a link to it in this thread, containing the suspect MacOS x86 timestamp binary.

[Peter Skinner]

I've been considering a hard switch to Mac for some time now. There's just something about Windows (I can't put my foot on it exactly) that I no longer like.

I just feel like my data isn't secure, mine.. it's hard to explain. This process of getting 24.0 ready for release and the issues I'm still having providing workable non-popcnt executables has me thinking MS is doing something fishy with the compilers and code.

Then again, I might just be more paranoid than normal when it comes to Windows and security...

Peter