JuLieN wrote:In the other hand, Richard Vida most probably broke criminal laws, maybe business law if his legal opponent can prove he is a competitor in the economical meaning of the word, and probably contract law if he broke Houdini's license (this I can't be sure, because I don't own Houdini myself). So if Richard Vida asks for all Robodini threads to be removed we will probably do that. (We, btw, never delete anything: all the removed posts/threads are put into a non-public archive.)
I guess that there's little doubt that the #3 engine in the world can be considered a competitor to the #1 engine in every meaning of the word.
If the case ever arises, would you provide access to the removed information at a request from me or my lawyer? Is there an official Moderation policy in this respect?
velmarin wrote:No, I could make a second translation into Castilian, and have another GPL.
The following would make a Portuguese translation, and we would have another GPL:
Indeed, you could protect all these translations under the GPL. So what is your point? Are you planning to make such translations?
lucasart wrote:
There is not a shred of evidence that Ippolit was produced by reverse engineering Rybka.
Ippolit is an original engine. PERIOD.
Interesting. So in your opinion it wasn't produced by reverse engineering any existing engine? Interesting.
Does anyone other than you believe this?
It woks in opposite way. YOU has to proof witch engine was RE to make Ippolit. Its original until someone proof the opposite.
No, I don't need to prove anything, since I haven't made any claims about the origin of this engine. (Which is good, because I know nothing about the origin.) I simply found Lucas's assertions interesting, since I thought (perhaps wrongly) that most engine authors are convinced that reverse engineering was involved in the creation of Ippolit.
It doesn't matter what people believe. Don't listen to anyone, especially on here. The only thing that matters is evidence. There is NONE. period.
Theory and practice sometimes clash. And when that happens, theory loses. Every single time.
Lavir wrote:Ok. Let's now assume that there is 100% proof of Robert using the English GPL version (also if there isn't), where is the proof that Robert used the work proprietary of Norman and Milos? Translating is NOT proprietary work at all
Actually, you are wrong about that. Translating does earn you copyrights. (In so far it is not mindless automated transform, such as a compiler does.) It just does not break the copyrights of the original work. After translation both the original author and the translator own copyrights, and are not allowed to use the work without each other's permission.
No, I could make a second translation into Castilian, and have another GPL.
The following would make a Portuguese translation, and we would have another GPL:
No friend, Norman GPL is smoke, and only hurt his insistence, are issues that should not be mixed.
/*
RobboLito is a UCI chess playing engine by
Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin, Igor Igorovich Igoronov, Roberto Pescatore
copyright: (C) 2009 Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin
date: 92th and 93rd year from Revolution
owners: PUBLICDOMAIN (workers)
dedication: To Vladimir Ilyich
RobboLito is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published
by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License,
or (at your option) any later version.
RobboLito is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program. If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/.
*/
You can not swim
and save l to clothing.
No, it's not smoke. The code added by Norman is GPLed. What was originally public domain is still public domain. So you can use the public domain part as you wish, but for Norman's adding you must comply with the GPL part.
In a general way, a software's status can only be changed through a new version. For instance, if you release a new program, say "Moron 1.0" as a free-ware, you can't then later say "now Moron 1.0" will not be freeware anymore. To do that, you need to release a new version, say "Moron 2.0". (Most of the time people who do that just change version number for this reason, no need to have a different software behind it ). But the 1.0 version will still be freeware.
IGarcia wrote:(This for Ed)
What if a Rebel freeware is translated by me to spanish and then released under GPL? Even its possible won't be that against your original intentions?
JuLieN wrote:In the other hand, Richard Vida most probably broke criminal laws, maybe business law if his legal opponent can prove he is a competitor in the economical meaning of the word, and probably contract law if he broke Houdini's license (this I can't be sure, because I don't own Houdini myself). So if Richard Vida asks for all Robodini threads to be removed we will probably do that. (We, btw, never delete anything: all the removed posts/threads are put into a non-public archive.)
I guess that there's little doubt that the #3 engine in the world can be considered a competitor to the #1 engine in every meaning of the word.
If the case ever arises, would you provide access to the removed information at a request from me or my lawyer? Is there an official Moderation policy in this respect?
Robert
Actually, it's not that clear: "competitor" here is an economical notion, something very precise in business law, not a sport notion. Critter is freeware, Houdini is not, for instance. Robodini is released for free as well, and you can't consider someone who makes no profit as an economical competitor (at least according to business law). If I were a lawyer in this case I would of course pretend my opponent is a competitor, but that would just be to pile up many things against him: eventually the judge would probably say he is not a competitor. But there are simpler grounds, here: criminal law and contract law.
Yes, if a court were to ask Talkchess some removed informations Talkchess would comply. (Which rises the question: "who is Talkchess?" Not the moderators nor the users, but most probably the domain's owner and server's operator.)
Lavir wrote:Ok. Let's now assume that there is 100% proof of Robert using the English GPL version (also if there isn't), where is the proof that Robert used the work proprietary of Norman and Milos? Translating is NOT proprietary work at all
Actually, you are wrong about that. Translating does earn you copyrights. (In so far it is not mindless automated transform, such as a compiler does.) It just does not break the copyrights of the original work. After translation both the original author and the translator own copyrights, and are not allowed to use the work without each other's permission.
No, I could make a second translation into Castilian, and have another GPL.
The following would make a Portuguese translation, and we would have another GPL:
No friend, Norman GPL is smoke, and only hurt his insistence, are issues that should not be mixed.
/*
RobboLito is a UCI chess playing engine by
Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin, Igor Igorovich Igoronov, Roberto Pescatore
copyright: (C) 2009 Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin
date: 92th and 93rd year from Revolution
owners: PUBLICDOMAIN (workers)
dedication: To Vladimir Ilyich
RobboLito is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published
by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License,
or (at your option) any later version.
RobboLito is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program. If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/.
*/
You can not swim
and save l to clothing.
No, it's not smoke. The code added by Norman is GPLed. What was originally public domain is still public domain. So you can use the public domain part as you wish, but for Norman's adding you must comply with the GPL part.
In a general way, a software's status can only be changed through a new version. For instance, if you release a new program, say "Moron 1.0" as a free-ware, you can't then later say "now Moron 1.0" will not be freeware anymore. To do that, you need to release a new version, say "Moron 2.0". (Most of the time people who do that just change version number for this reason, no need to have a different software behind it ). But the 1.0 version will still be freeware.
No sir, Norman appropriates some PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Even the name is appropriate.
That does not hold.
Ndie asked to do anything, he can not put GPL to what does not belong.
Never
Lavir wrote:Ok. Let's now assume that there is 100% proof of Robert using the English GPL version (also if there isn't), where is the proof that Robert used the work proprietary of Norman and Milos? Translating is NOT proprietary work at all
Actually, you are wrong about that. Translating does earn you copyrights. (In so far it is not mindless automated transform, such as a compiler does.) It just does not break the copyrights of the original work. After translation both the original author and the translator own copyrights, and are not allowed to use the work without each other's permission.
No, I could make a second translation into Castilian, and have another GPL.
The following would make a Portuguese translation, and we would have another GPL:
No friend, Norman GPL is smoke, and only hurt his insistence, are issues that should not be mixed.
/*
RobboLito is a UCI chess playing engine by
Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin, Igor Igorovich Igoronov, Roberto Pescatore
copyright: (C) 2009 Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin
date: 92th and 93rd year from Revolution
owners: PUBLICDOMAIN (workers)
dedication: To Vladimir Ilyich
RobboLito is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published
by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License,
or (at your option) any later version.
RobboLito is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program. If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/.
*/
You can not swim
and save l to clothing.
No, it's not smoke. The code added by Norman is GPLed. What was originally public domain is still public domain. So you can use the public domain part as you wish, but for Norman's adding you must comply with the GPL part.
In a general way, a software's status can only be changed through a new version. For instance, if you release a new program, say "Moron 1.0" as a free-ware, you can't then later say "now Moron 1.0" will not be freeware anymore. To do that, you need to release a new version, say "Moron 2.0". (Most of the time people who do that just change version number for this reason, no need to have a different software behind it ). But the 1.0 version will still be freeware.
No sir, Norman appropriates some PUBLIC DOMAIN.
Even the name is appropriate.
That does not hold.
Ndie asked to do anything, he can not put GPL to what does not belong.
Never
No, Norman only GPLed his addition to the code. If you don't want his addition, start from a previous branch that didn't have his additions.
). But the 1.0 version will still be freeware.
