What should Robert do? (read post first before you vote)

[kranium]

I refer to the FTP link posted that contained the 0.85f1a version.

--Jon

that is the the original ippolit relase

No it isn't. First of all it's Robbolit and not ippolit so what do you mean when you say it was the first ippolit release?

The first release that I ever say was a single file source with Italian names for objects and comments.

i mean ippolit.wikispaces.com as opposed to chesslogik.com
the original source code as opposed to anything i released

[Houdini]

Folks,

I hate to see Robert dragged through the mud every time and this poll is meant to suggest some constructive solutions and to express your feelings as a guide for him what to do. But first allow me to put things in a historic nutshell before you cast your vote.

LOL. This thread has become hilarious, internet forums at their best .
To add to the general hilarity, let's make a deal: if you can provide clarity about the origin of IPPOLIT, I will provide more details about the origin of Houdini.

Cherio,
Robert

[Don]

public domain is supposed to mean completely unrestricted but since that leads immediately to logical contradictions

The only contradiction here is that it is not compatible with a GPL or similar license.

Public domain generally means that there are no ownership rights asserted for the work in question. A common case is a work whose copyright has expired. An author can also explicitly disclaim copyright. That isn't self-contradictory. Although, in my experience, most people who want to provide broad access to something will keep the copyright but license it under a highly permissive license.

--Jon

The contradiction is that if it means no ownership then you can copy it and then stake a claim on ownership. If you cannot do that, then it's much more restrictive than actually creating your own.

[Don]

public domain is supposed to mean completely unrestricted but since that leads immediately to logical contradictions

The only contradiction here is that it is not compatible with a GPL or similar license.

Public domain generally means that there are no ownership rights asserted for the work in question. A common case is a work whose copyright has expired. An author can also explicitly disclaim copyright. That isn't self-contradictory. Although, in my experience, most people who want to provide broad access to something will keep the copyright but license it under a highly permissive license.

--Jon

I am being a bit facetious, my real point here is that it is claimed that because a work is "public domain" you can grab a copy of it and copyright it yourself.

But in reality I don't think that is a protection. Because if public domain means NOBODY owns it, that is a lot different than saying "EVERYBODY" owns it. It means that I cannot claim it, for example changing the uci strings to have my name as author and then saying it's protected private sources that I have a copyright on.

Is that correct Julien or anyone else who knows the law?

I am very interested in all of these issues because I am a commercial author and just want to understand. I don't intend to go after anyone for it unless it happens with Komodo.

[jdart]

The contradiction is that if it means no ownership then you can copy it and then stake a claim on ownership.

No, because you can only copyright an original work, of which you are the author. You could release such a work under a new license but if it was public domain to start with (as might be the case here, it seems) then the original continues to be usable as a public domain work. It is a bit like forking code that used to be Apache licensed but now is GPL. As long as you are using the pre-fork version that is still Apache licensed. If you added bits to it then only the added bits really are GPL only.

--Jon

[JuLieN]

public domain is supposed to mean completely unrestricted but since that leads immediately to logical contradictions

The only contradiction here is that it is not compatible with a GPL or similar license.

Public domain generally means that there are no ownership rights asserted for the work in question. A common case is a work whose copyright has expired. An author can also explicitly disclaim copyright. That isn't self-contradictory. Although, in my experience, most people who want to provide broad access to something will keep the copyright but license it under a highly permissive license.

--Jon

I am being a bit facetious, my real point here is that it is claimed that because a work is "public domain" you can grab a copy of it and copyright it yourself.

But in reality I don't think that is a protection. Because if public domain means NOBODY owns it, that is a lot different than saying "EVERYBODY" owns it. It means that I cannot claim it, for example changing the uci strings to have my name as author and then saying it's protected private sources that I have a copyright on.

Is that correct Julien or anyone else who knows the law?

I am very interested in all of these issues because I am a commercial author and just want to understand. I don't intend to go after anyone for it unless it happens with Komodo.

It means that nobody owns rights on it (either because the rights are finished or because the original author abandoned them.) So yes, everybody could grab a copy of, say, HelloLito and make it his own, calling it HalloLito... which would be pointless, because everybody could do the same and keep using HelloLito's code anyway. In real life case, you take HelloLito and improve it as a closed-source program, calling it HalloLito. And this makes sense: everybody is still free to start too from HelloLito, but nobody has access to HalloLito's sources nor are they allowed to RE it (except in the two cases mentioned in the Q&A thread).

I'm a bit bored with this discussion and would like to go back to my own engine, now.

[Don]

public domain is supposed to mean completely unrestricted but since that leads immediately to logical contradictions

The only contradiction here is that it is not compatible with a GPL or similar license.

Public domain generally means that there are no ownership rights asserted for the work in question. A common case is a work whose copyright has expired. An author can also explicitly disclaim copyright. That isn't self-contradictory. Although, in my experience, most people who want to provide broad access to something will keep the copyright but license it under a highly permissive license.

--Jon

I am being a bit facetious, my real point here is that it is claimed that because a work is "public domain" you can grab a copy of it and copyright it yourself.

But in reality I don't think that is a protection. Because if public domain means NOBODY owns it, that is a lot different than saying "EVERYBODY" owns it. It means that I cannot claim it, for example changing the uci strings to have my name as author and then saying it's protected private sources that I have a copyright on.

Is that correct Julien or anyone else who knows the law?

I am very interested in all of these issues because I am a commercial author and just want to understand. I don't intend to go after anyone for it unless it happens with Komodo.

It means that nobody owns rights on it (either because the rights are finished or because the original author abandoned them.) So yes, everybody could grab a copy of, say, HelloLito and make it his own, calling it HalloLito... which would be pointless, because everybody could do the same and keep using HelloLito's code anyway. In real life case, you take HelloLito and improve it as a closed-source program, calling it HalloLito. And this makes sense: everybody is still free to start too from HelloLito, but nobody has access to HalloLito's sources nor are they allowed to RE it (except in the two cases mentioned in the Q&A thread).

I'm a bit bored with this discussion and would like to go back to my own engine, now.

That is basically what I wanted to know. So whatever Robert did is perfectly acceptable and we can put this to rest now.

[JuLieN]

public domain is supposed to mean completely unrestricted but since that leads immediately to logical contradictions

The only contradiction here is that it is not compatible with a GPL or similar license.

Public domain generally means that there are no ownership rights asserted for the work in question. A common case is a work whose copyright has expired. An author can also explicitly disclaim copyright. That isn't self-contradictory. Although, in my experience, most people who want to provide broad access to something will keep the copyright but license it under a highly permissive license.

--Jon

I am being a bit facetious, my real point here is that it is claimed that because a work is "public domain" you can grab a copy of it and copyright it yourself.

But in reality I don't think that is a protection. Because if public domain means NOBODY owns it, that is a lot different than saying "EVERYBODY" owns it. It means that I cannot claim it, for example changing the uci strings to have my name as author and then saying it's protected private sources that I have a copyright on.

Is that correct Julien or anyone else who knows the law?

I am very interested in all of these issues because I am a commercial author and just want to understand. I don't intend to go after anyone for it unless it happens with Komodo.

It means that nobody owns rights on it (either because the rights are finished or because the original author abandoned them.) So yes, everybody could grab a copy of, say, HelloLito and make it his own, calling it HalloLito... which would be pointless, because everybody could do the same and keep using HelloLito's code anyway. In real life case, you take HelloLito and improve it as a closed-source program, calling it HalloLito. And this makes sense: everybody is still free to start too from HelloLito, but nobody has access to HalloLito's sources nor are they allowed to RE it (except in the two cases mentioned in the Q&A thread).

I'm a bit bored with this discussion and would like to go back to my own engine, now.

That is basically what I wanted to know. So whatever Robert did is perfectly acceptable and we can put this to rest now.

Yes, except if he included some GPLed parts in his program. Then he has to publish them (and only them), wether they are modified or unmodified. But if Robert started from public domain sources and added only ideas from Stockfish, not SF code by copy-pasting, then there's nothing wrong with that. It would be ethical to just say it, but nothing else can be reproached.

[velmarin]

Julen,
Totally agree.
For me it is clear.

Thanks.

[LudiBuda]

Based on what I see in there, GPL case against Houdart is weak.
When you look at the disassembled Houdini, you can't see if he used the GPLed English translation or the freeware Italian version unless we can find some specific elements that exists in the English version only.