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

[geots]

Look, im going to say this, and it may be irrelevant if any legal proceedings take place between FSF, Fabien vs. Vas and Rybka. And there is no arguing about it because I have a brother in our Nations Capital who plays golf twice a week with a judge who is on the highest circuit court of appeals before it is taken to the highest court here who has the final say. The Supreme Court.
I mention irrelevant because he said he has zero knowledge of International Law, tho he did work one time long ago in a case thru another lawyer in Sweden or some country- I dont remember.. But it wasnt on a topic like this. I talked to him for a couple hours and this is USA law- no ifs, ands, or buts. Im not going to be around to argue any threads that may come up here. Dont have the time. Im just letting you know what I know- for a 100% fact. Here we go: IF and i say, IF the main argument is between Fruit 2.1 and Rybka Beta 1, and everything hinges on that. When i say hinges on that, I mean everyone says the later Rybka versions are not the issue, as far as I can tell. But some one may want to go further than this first Beta. I have no idea. The judge told me that USA law says that if FSF did not own the code to Fruit 2.1 when Vas developed Rybka Beta 1, they are a non-issue. They are out of the picture and can file no kind of suit between FSF and Rybka Beta 1. Because they did not own the code at the time. They can go after any version of Rybka that was developed AFTER the code was in their hands. So then it would fall back to whoever owned the code when Rybka 1 Beta was developed and put out. Which i guess would be Fabien. So if they want to go after Vas based on some kind of Fruit 2.1=Rybka Beta 1, FSF is out of the picture. If Fabien owned the code at that time- he is the ONLY ONE who could file the suit. Either he has to do that, or FSF has to go after later versions of Rybka developed after they owned the code. Which from what i can tell would be problematic at best. Im not going to get into ethics, GPL or whatever the name is and how the chess community might police itself. All Im saying is if GPL or whatever or programmers came up with what, Vas would take it to a higher court. And this judge said he would be mildly surprised if International Law wasnt basically the same. Just his opinion- not a fact. Again as far as Fruit 2.1 vs. Rybka Beta 1- FSF doesnt have a horse in that race. 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. And will be told in the first place, as a starting point of reference, he should never have done that. And that could even turn out to be the crucial issue, and that would be argued for weeks. And he is going to have to hire legal counsel, and this thing could be a long process. And his counsel is going to be looking for a lot of money from someone, and FSF isnt in the picture,unless as I said it concerns later versions of Rybka. There it is in black and white. He said he would be likely with the info i gave him, to throw it completely out. But he hedged there with the statement that he isnt involved in this either, and he would have to know more facts. 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 am going to refrain from mentioning what he said his advice to Fabien was. It wasnt his business to tell him. But I dont think anyone sane would not be able to read between the lines on that. There you have it. International law- it may even be a whole new ballgame. And I dont give a shit either way. If this is discussed further here, fine. If not, fine. I will get a good nights sleep no matter what . But dont ask me to come back and answer any questions on this . I wont be around. Because the judge told me these are the facts, and anyone who wants to dispute it in this country, needs to do some heavy reading in law books. Months worth. International law again, who knows. Im outta here.


Good Luck to All Regards,

[gaard]

...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. And will be told in the first place, as a starting point of reference, he should never have done that.

Now Fabien could be scrutinized for making a mistake when he released his source code under the GPL which he never should have done? I don't know whether to laugh or cry. The twists and turns this controversy is taking is like something out of The Twilight Zone

[Terry McCracken]

...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. And will be told in the first place, as a starting point of reference, he should never have done that.

Now Fabien could be scrutinized for making a mistake when he released his source code under the GPL which he never should have done? I don't know whether to laugh or cry. The twists and turns this controversy is taking is like something out of The Twilight Zone

More like The Outer Limits.

[Christopher Conkie]

The twists and turns this controversy is taking is like something out of The Twilight Zone

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1sf2CzEq0w

I've always preferred Radar Love personally.



On a more serious on topic note......

.....I don't think there are any simple answers anymore which is what George wants. The next step if there is any required needs to be made by Fabien.

What I would say although, is that if the guy can make Fruit, you all should be very afraid of the Fructose he can make should he so wish.

I wonder if he released something stronger and closed source, than any other program currently, whether they would disassemble that too.

It is an interesting thought. Would they disassemble a program it was the best thing out there no matter who made it......?

I'd make a poll but there is no point. It would be a landslide.

Chris

[geots]

To maybe avoid confusion, when i said Im outta here, I meant for the night. I will discuss other topics here, but Im done with Fruit-Rybka. I dont care any longer. Im weary of talking about and listening to it. And I certainly apologize if anything i said above hurt anyone's feelings. That was not my intention. I am one who still thinks we have a hell of a lot of good guys on this forum, and I hope this forum survives. I enjoy my time hear, and have no hard feelings toward anyone.


All the Best to Each and Every One of You,

[slobo]

Look, im going to say this, and it may be irrelevant if any legal proceedings take place between FSF, Fabien vs. Vas and Rybka. And there is no arguing about it because I have a brother in our Nations Capital who plays golf twice a week with a judge who is on the highest circuit court of appeals before it is taken to the highest court here who has the final say. The Supreme Court.
(...)

Do they also practice martial arts with Steven Seagal?

[Tom Barrister]

Look, im going to say this, and it may be irrelevant if any legal proceedings take place between FSF, Fabien vs. Vas and Rybka. And there is no arguing about it because I have a brother in our Nations Capital who plays golf twice a week with a judge who is on the highest circuit court of appeals before it is taken to the highest court here who has the final say. The Supreme Court.
I mention irrelevant because he said he has zero knowledge of International Law, tho he did work one time long ago in a case thru another lawyer in Sweden or some country- I dont remember.. But it wasnt on a topic like this. I talked to him for a couple hours and this is USA law- no ifs, ands, or buts. Im not going to be around to argue any threads that may come up here. Dont have the time. Im just letting you know what I know- for a 100% fact. Here we go: IF and i say, IF the main argument is between Fruit 2.1 and Rybka Beta 1, and everything hinges on that. When i say hinges on that, I mean everyone says the later Rybka versions are not the issue, as far as I can tell. But some one may want to go further than this first Beta. I have no idea. The judge told me that USA law says that if FSF did not own the code to Fruit 2.1 when Vas developed Rybka Beta 1, they are a non-issue. They are out of the picture and can file no kind of suit between FSF and Rybka Beta 1. Because they did not own the code at the time. They can go after any version of Rybka that was developed AFTER the code was in their hands. So then it would fall back to whoever owned the code when Rybka 1 Beta was developed and put out. Which i guess would be Fabien. So if they want to go after Vas based on some kind of Fruit 2.1=Rybka Beta 1, FSF is out of the picture. If Fabien owned the code at that time- he is the ONLY ONE who could file the suit. Either he has to do that, or FSF has to go after later versions of Rybka developed after they owned the code. Which from what i can tell would be problematic at best. Im not going to get into ethics, GPL or whatever the name is and how the chess community might police itself. All Im saying is if GPL or whatever or programmers came up with what, Vas would take it to a higher court. And this judge said he would be mildly surprised if International Law wasnt basically the same. Just his opinion- not a fact. Again as far as Fruit 2.1 vs. Rybka Beta 1- FSF doesnt have a horse in that race. 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. And will be told in the first place, as a starting point of reference, he should never have done that. And that could even turn out to be the crucial issue, and that would be argued for weeks. And he is going to have to hire legal counsel, and this thing could be a long process. And his counsel is going to be looking for a lot of money from someone, and FSF isnt in the picture,unless as I said it concerns later versions of Rybka. There it is in black and white. He said he would be likely with the info i gave him, to throw it completely out. But he hedged there with the statement that he isnt involved in this either, and he would have to know more facts. 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 am going to refrain from mentioning what he said his advice to Fabien was. It wasnt his business to tell him. But I dont think anyone sane would not be able to read between the lines on that. There you have it. International law- it may even be a whole new ballgame. And I dont give a shit either way. If this is discussed further here, fine. If not, fine. I will get a good nights sleep no matter what . But dont ask me to come back and answer any questions on this . I wont be around. Because the judge told me these are the facts, and anyone who wants to dispute it in this country, needs to do some heavy reading in law books. Months worth. International law again, who knows. Im outta here.


Good Luck to All Regards,

That's the most convoluted piece of bullshit I've read to date. No second year law student would have made the statements you claim a circuit judge did. I can't believe that a dozen people haven't called you on it.

For the rest of you, I don't have time to get into all of the details, so I'll make it very brief. When intellectual property rights are assigned to another entity, be it by any means (sale, gift, judgement, etc.), the full rights are the property of the new owner, unless agreement is made to the contrary.

Fast example: John Programmer writes and copyrights software called DataGreatO. He sells DataGreatO to Microsoft, the current edition at the time of sale being version 2.0. Microsoft now makes a few changes and releases version 2.1 or releases it under another name.

Now Pete Pirate comes along, hex edits DataGreatO 2.0 (or 1.8 or whatever) so that it reads "DataCoolio 1.0" with his name in the credits, and goes out and sells it, or goes out and gives it away, or whatever.

By your logic, Microsoft couldn't take action against Pete Pirate, and that John Programmer would have to initiate action. If John Programmer wasn't interested (and why would he be, since he no longer owned the software?) then John Pirate could continue to do as he pleased with DataGreatO 2.0 and earlier.

Does anybody believe that one? Try stealing something that belongs to Microsoft, Oracle, Intel, etc., on the basis that it was written by somebody else before being sold, and see how fast you get a court order sent your way.

Here's one other quick argument to shoot your statement in the foot. Power of attorney can be assigned to somebody else, meaning that if your convoluted statement about Mr. Letouzey needing to sue was correct (which it laughably is not), he could assign power of attorney to the Free Software Foundation to pursue the matter for him.

You must put fear into these people to be able to make such a clueless and completely wrong statement as you did and not get called on it. That or nobody takes you seriously anymore. Don't twist things around by saying that GPL software is different. It's not, and the FSF could clear that up in a hurry if it cared to make a statement about it..

[IGarcia]

Look, im going to say this, and it may be irrelevant if any legal proceedings take place between FSF, Fabien vs. Vas and Rybka. And there is no arguing about it because I have a brother in our Nations Capital who plays golf twice a week with a judge who is on the highest circuit court of appeals before it is taken to the highest court here who has the final say. The Supreme Court.
I mention irrelevant because he said he has zero knowledge of International Law, tho he did work one time long ago in a case thru another lawyer in Sweden or some country- I dont remember.. But it wasnt on a topic like this. I talked to him for a couple hours and this is USA law- no ifs, ands, or buts. Im not going to be around to argue any threads that may come up here. Dont have the time. Im just letting you know what I know- for a 100% fact. Here we go: IF and i say, IF the main argument is between Fruit 2.1 and Rybka Beta 1, and everything hinges on that. When i say hinges on that, I mean everyone says the later Rybka versions are not the issue, as far as I can tell. But some one may want to go further than this first Beta. I have no idea. The judge told me that USA law says that if FSF did not own the code to Fruit 2.1 when Vas developed Rybka Beta 1, they are a non-issue. They are out of the picture and can file no kind of suit between FSF and Rybka Beta 1. Because they did not own the code at the time. They can go after any version of Rybka that was developed AFTER the code was in their hands. So then it would fall back to whoever owned the code when Rybka 1 Beta was developed and put out. Which i guess would be Fabien. So if they want to go after Vas based on some kind of Fruit 2.1=Rybka Beta 1, FSF is out of the picture. If Fabien owned the code at that time- he is the ONLY ONE who could file the suit. Either he has to do that, or FSF has to go after later versions of Rybka developed after they owned the code. Which from what i can tell would be problematic at best. Im not going to get into ethics, GPL or whatever the name is and how the chess community might police itself. All Im saying is if GPL or whatever or programmers came up with what, Vas would take it to a higher court. And this judge said he would be mildly surprised if International Law wasnt basically the same. Just his opinion- not a fact. Again as far as Fruit 2.1 vs. Rybka Beta 1- FSF doesnt have a horse in that race. 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. And will be told in the first place, as a starting point of reference, he should never have done that. And that could even turn out to be the crucial issue, and that would be argued for weeks. And he is going to have to hire legal counsel, and this thing could be a long process. And his counsel is going to be looking for a lot of money from someone, and FSF isnt in the picture,unless as I said it concerns later versions of Rybka. There it is in black and white. He said he would be likely with the info i gave him, to throw it completely out. But he hedged there with the statement that he isnt involved in this either, and he would have to know more facts. 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 am going to refrain from mentioning what he said his advice to Fabien was. It wasnt his business to tell him. But I dont think anyone sane would not be able to read between the lines on that. There you have it. International law- it may even be a whole new ballgame. And I dont give a shit either way. If this is discussed further here, fine. If not, fine. I will get a good nights sleep no matter what . But dont ask me to come back and answer any questions on this . I wont be around. Because the judge told me these are the facts, and anyone who wants to dispute it in this country, needs to do some heavy reading in law books. Months worth. International law again, who knows. Im outta here.


Good Luck to All Regards,

A friend of mine, who lives in the artic and play with a bear (wich is friend of an former US president) toldme you speak nosense

[K I Hyams]

Look, im going to say this, and it may be irrelevant if any legal proceedings take place between FSF, Fabien vs. Vas and Rybka. And there is no arguing about it because I have a brother in our Nations Capital who plays golf twice a week with a judge who is on the highest circuit court of appeals before it is taken to the highest court here who has the final say. The Supreme Court.
I mention irrelevant because he said he has zero knowledge of International Law, tho he did work one time long ago in a case thru another lawyer in Sweden or some country- I dont remember.. But it wasnt on a topic like this. I talked to him for a couple hours and this is USA law- no ifs, ands, or buts. Im not going to be around to argue any threads that may come up here. Dont have the time. Im just letting you know what I know- for a 100% fact. Here we go: IF and i say, IF the main argument is between Fruit 2.1 and Rybka Beta 1, and everything hinges on that. When i say hinges on that, I mean everyone says the later Rybka versions are not the issue, as far as I can tell. But some one may want to go further than this first Beta. I have no idea. The judge told me that USA law says that if FSF did not own the code to Fruit 2.1 when Vas developed Rybka Beta 1, they are a non-issue. They are out of the picture and can file no kind of suit between FSF and Rybka Beta 1. Because they did not own the code at the time. They can go after any version of Rybka that was developed AFTER the code was in their hands. So then it would fall back to whoever owned the code when Rybka 1 Beta was developed and put out. Which i guess would be Fabien. So if they want to go after Vas based on some kind of Fruit 2.1=Rybka Beta 1, FSF is out of the picture. If Fabien owned the code at that time- he is the ONLY ONE who could file the suit. Either he has to do that, or FSF has to go after later versions of Rybka developed after they owned the code. Which from what i can tell would be problematic at best. Im not going to get into ethics, GPL or whatever the name is and how the chess community might police itself. All Im saying is if GPL or whatever or programmers came up with what, Vas would take it to a higher court. And this judge said he would be mildly surprised if International Law wasnt basically the same. Just his opinion- not a fact. Again as far as Fruit 2.1 vs. Rybka Beta 1- FSF doesnt have a horse in that race. 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. And will be told in the first place, as a starting point of reference, he should never have done that. And that could even turn out to be the crucial issue, and that would be argued for weeks. And he is going to have to hire legal counsel, and this thing could be a long process. And his counsel is going to be looking for a lot of money from someone, and FSF isnt in the picture,unless as I said it concerns later versions of Rybka. There it is in black and white. He said he would be likely with the info i gave him, to throw it completely out. But he hedged there with the statement that he isnt involved in this either, and he would have to know more facts. 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 am going to refrain from mentioning what he said his advice to Fabien was. It wasnt his business to tell him. But I dont think anyone sane would not be able to read between the lines on that. There you have it. International law- it may even be a whole new ballgame. And I dont give a shit either way. If this is discussed further here, fine. If not, fine. I will get a good nights sleep no matter what . But dont ask me to come back and answer any questions on this . I wont be around. Because the judge told me these are the facts, and anyone who wants to dispute it in this country, needs to do some heavy reading in law books. Months worth. International law again, who knows. Im outta here.


Good Luck to All Regards,

Your initial proposition was that you wanted to see a limitation on discussion of the Rybka Fruit issue. If that is really the case, you should know that your last 2 threads have not only been pointless, they have also served to keep focus on the issue that you claim that you want to fade away.

[bob]

Look, im going to say this, and it may be irrelevant if any legal proceedings take place between FSF, Fabien vs. Vas and Rybka. And there is no arguing about it because I have a brother in our Nations Capital who plays golf twice a week with a judge who is on the highest circuit court of appeals before it is taken to the highest court here who has the final say. The Supreme Court.
I mention irrelevant because he said he has zero knowledge of International Law, tho he did work one time long ago in a case thru another lawyer in Sweden or some country- I dont remember.. But it wasnt on a topic like this. I talked to him for a couple hours and this is USA law- no ifs, ands, or buts. Im not going to be around to argue any threads that may come up here. Dont have the time. Im just letting you know what I know- for a 100% fact. Here we go: IF and i say, IF the main argument is between Fruit 2.1 and Rybka Beta 1, and everything hinges on that. When i say hinges on that, I mean everyone says the later Rybka versions are not the issue, as far as I can tell. But some one may want to go further than this first Beta. I have no idea. The judge told me that USA law says that if FSF did not own the code to Fruit 2.1 when Vas developed Rybka Beta 1, they are a non-issue. They are out of the picture and can file no kind of suit between FSF and Rybka Beta 1. Because they did not own the code at the time. They can go after any version of Rybka that was developed AFTER the code was in their hands. So then it would fall back to whoever owned the code when Rybka 1 Beta was developed and put out. Which i guess would be Fabien. So if they want to go after Vas based on some kind of Fruit 2.1=Rybka Beta 1, FSF is out of the picture. If Fabien owned the code at that time- he is the ONLY ONE who could file the suit. Either he has to do that, or FSF has to go after later versions of Rybka developed after they owned the code. Which from what i can tell would be problematic at best. Im not going to get into ethics, GPL or whatever the name is and how the chess community might police itself. All Im saying is if GPL or whatever or programmers came up with what, Vas would take it to a higher court. And this judge said he would be mildly surprised if International Law wasnt basically the same. Just his opinion- not a fact. Again as far as Fruit 2.1 vs. Rybka Beta 1- FSF doesnt have a horse in that race. 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. And will be told in the first place, as a starting point of reference, he should never have done that. And that could even turn out to be the crucial issue, and that would be argued for weeks. And he is going to have to hire legal counsel, and this thing could be a long process. And his counsel is going to be looking for a lot of money from someone, and FSF isnt in the picture,unless as I said it concerns later versions of Rybka. There it is in black and white. He said he would be likely with the info i gave him, to throw it completely out. But he hedged there with the statement that he isnt involved in this either, and he would have to know more facts. 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 am going to refrain from mentioning what he said his advice to Fabien was. It wasnt his business to tell him. But I dont think anyone sane would not be able to read between the lines on that. There you have it. International law- it may even be a whole new ballgame. And I dont give a shit either way. If this is discussed further here, fine. If not, fine. I will get a good nights sleep no matter what . But dont ask me to come back and answer any questions on this . I wont be around. Because the judge told me these are the facts, and anyone who wants to dispute it in this country, needs to do some heavy reading in law books. Months worth. International law again, who knows. Im outta here.


Good Luck to All Regards,

George, I no more believe that this person is a judge than I believe you are one. Copyright law is clear. Whatever I write, I own. I can put it wherever I want, but the copyright is _still_ mine until I explicitly assign it to someone else, or until I explicitly give someone else the rights while retaining the copyright for myself.

Publishing your source does not give others a right to copy any more than publishing a book gives others the right to use that material freely as if it is theirs, say making copies of a book they bought and giving it to others.

And that _is_ copyright law, not fantasy law...

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...