FSF cannot own the algorithms unless they patent them.Ryan Benitez wrote:Computer chess is a unique community in that it has become very grey for reasons I do not understand. I feel that I am in the minority here but I would prefer the FSF clarify what is and is not legal and either shut Rybka down or clear Rybka of GPL violation accusations. I have no personal interest either way and find it unfortunate that this has become such a polarizing issue.Chan Rasjid wrote:This is where most are wrong and HGM right.bob wrote:I think you are misinterpreting "translation". Certainly if I translate a book from German to English and sell it as my own, I'll run afoul of copyright laws pretty quickly if the English copy sells well.hgm wrote:Read it again, then. As many times as it needed to register. He says "legally 'there is no issue". Which means no GPL violation, i.e. no copying of code.mwyoung wrote:The proof is the author of Fruit himself. "Fabien's open letter to the community". And Vas statement that he claimed that Strelka 2.0 is a clone of Rybka 1.0. This linked Fruit code with Rybka code.
Now I understand of course you take Fabien for an idiot, so that you can ignoe what he writes completely, and just want to use the fact that he says anything at all as a good opprtunity to shoot off your mouth aganst those that you dislike.
But I take Fabien kind of seriously. "No copying of code, but a translation of the algorithm".
So 'poof' goes your 'proof'...
The idea of 'derived work' has never been tested yet in any court (internet). Most legal/technical experts interpret 'derived work' in GPL to only include 'copy and paste'. The notions about derived work accepted in general copyright laws do not apply in GPL.
Hence, if someone reads an algorithm from an FSF program and then writes a function that does the same thing, they have not broken the law.
They can define "derive" in any way that they like, but if they define it in such a way that you cannot learn an algorithm and implenent it, then they have contradicted the existing law and their definition is invalid.
If they want to make a license where it is illegal to read the code and learn from it, then that might be another matter. I don't think it would be enforceable.