My two cents

[gerold]

Thanks for your post. (Zappa)

Still enjoying your first free Zappa.

Best to you Anthony,

Gerold.

[tiger]

More than to make your sharp, scholarly distinction between experts and we, low laymen, you does not say too much.
In this field I am certainly a layman and you are the expert, but experts and laymen obey the same laws of logic or simple common sense. And common sense say that no matter which part of a code Vas used from another guy, the final result, as you yourself recognizes, surpasse everything known to date.
I am still waiting the day when logic will be inverted in such a manner that a simple clone will be times better than the thing it copied. Clone is a clone is a clone. A derivative is only such. A program tha comes from other can be equal, worst in any degree or slightly better, but not so much better. If it is so much better, it is then another thing. It became another thing. And as such it digested to make something else of the opiginal stuff he devoured.

Hungry regards
Fern

Sad to see I have wasted my time trying to explain to you the meaning of the GPL.

Let's be positive. I learn every day the limits I should have transgressed. Maybe it's not too late.



// Christophe

[Uri Blass]

More than to make your sharp, scholarly distinction between experts and we, low laymen, you does not say too much.
In this field I am certainly a layman and you are the expert, but experts and laymen obey the same laws of logic or simple common sense. And common sense say that no matter which part of a code Vas used from another guy, the final result, as you yourself recognizes, surpasse everything known to date.
I am still waiting the day when logic will be inverted in such a manner that a simple clone will be times better than the thing it copied. Clone is a clone is a clone. A derivative is only such. A program tha comes from other can be equal, worst in any degree or slightly better, but not so much better. If it is so much better, it is then another thing. It became another thing. And as such it digested to make something else of the opiginal stuff he devoured.

Hungry regards
Fern

Sad to see I have wasted my time trying to explain to you the meaning of the GPL.

Let's be positive. I learn every day the limits I should have transgressed. Maybe it's not too late.



// Christophe

The problem is not understanding the meaning of the GPL
The problem is that people do not support the GPL.

The facts that there are rules does not mean that people support the rules.
People are going to support people who are quilty if they think there is no moral reason to decide that they are quilty.

My opinion is that it is simply morally wrong to decide that Vas is quilty
even if legally you are right and Vas is quilty about breaking the GPL and before you say that if there are no rules you can also be number 1 I will say that there are rules that I support and there are rules that I do not support so you cannot do everything and be non quilty from my moral point of view.

Edit:
Note also that I am not convinced that Vas broke the GPL
but I think that the GPL should not be legal in the first place(not that this is the legal situation but this is what I would like to see).

If I publish some idea and say nobody is allowed to use that idea then my words cannot force other not to use the idea.

I think that the same should be with code(unless you copy significant big code and even in the worst case I do not think Vas copied significant big code from my point of view).

Uri

[Andres Valverde]

Finally, the people who think that Zach is somehow discrediting himself with this are insane. He may or may not be wrong, but IMHO he has conducted himself with remarkable composure, especially for someone only 20 years old.

Agree. I'm rather surprised Zach would put effort at what I would consider, with a little bit of experience in it myself, "the boring task" of manually analyzing engines (more interesting would be to create a program that finds similarities automatically ). However, from what little I've read in this discussion, I too do not believe he has done anything that would possibly damage his reputation in my eyes.

Yeah, you're pretty older than Zach

You can figure out the magnitude of his investigation quite well. You shown here proofs enough to unmask the Buzz clone, however I did read here some comments telling that it was not clear at all !! .

[bnemias]

The problem is not understanding the meaning of the GPL The problem is that people do not support the GPL.

One must first understand a thing in order support/oppose it.

Note also that I am not convinced that Vas broke the GPL
but I think that the GPL should not be legal in the first place(not that this is the legal situation but this is what I would like to see).

If I publish some idea and say nobody is allowed to use that idea then my words cannot force other not to use the idea.

I think that the same should be with code(unless you copy significant big code and even in the worst case I do not think Vas copied significant big code from my point of view).

The GPL is about making sure that code, once free, stays free. It is about making sure that code you distribute gives others the same rights you had when you got it. It's that simple. There is nothing stopping commercial interests-- just don't borrow from GPL projects. Why is that so hard to swallow?

Having said that, I think it might be helpful to read this post and some of its replies.

[tiger]

More than to make your sharp, scholarly distinction between experts and we, low laymen, you does not say too much.
In this field I am certainly a layman and you are the expert, but experts and laymen obey the same laws of logic or simple common sense. And common sense say that no matter which part of a code Vas used from another guy, the final result, as you yourself recognizes, surpasse everything known to date.
I am still waiting the day when logic will be inverted in such a manner that a simple clone will be times better than the thing it copied. Clone is a clone is a clone. A derivative is only such. A program tha comes from other can be equal, worst in any degree or slightly better, but not so much better. If it is so much better, it is then another thing. It became another thing. And as such it digested to make something else of the opiginal stuff he devoured.

Hungry regards
Fern

Sad to see I have wasted my time trying to explain to you the meaning of the GPL.

Let's be positive. I learn every day the limits I should have transgressed. Maybe it's not too late.



// Christophe

The problem is not understanding the meaning of the GPL
The problem is that people do not support the GPL.

The facts that there are rules does not mean that people support the rules.
People are going to support people who are quilty if they think there is no moral reason to decide that they are quilty.

My opinion is that it is simply morally wrong to decide that Vas is quilty
even if legally you are right and Vas is quilty about breaking the GPL and before you say that if there are no rules you can also be number 1 I will say that there are rules that I support and there are rules that I do not support so you cannot do everything and be non quilty from my moral point of view.

Edit:
Note also that I am not convinced that Vas broke the GPL
but I think that the GPL should not be legal in the first place(not that this is the legal situation but this is what I would like to see).

If I publish some idea and say nobody is allowed to use that idea then my words cannot force other not to use the idea.

I think that the same should be with code(unless you copy significant big code and even in the worst case I do not think Vas copied significant big code from my point of view).

Uri

Uri, this is one of your best post and I mean this sincerely. No irony intended.

There is a lot of truth in what you say and it is one of the conclusions I draw from the debate: people do not support the GPL. Or by extension any rule they do not like, even if the rule is about fairness and has been exposed beforehand.

I have explained the GPL in simple terms at least a dozen times here. But I see the people to whom I have explained coming back and absolutely nothing has changed in their mind. So it's not a problem of not being aware of it, the problem is that everybody will have his own (wrong) reason to ignore the rule and hope that nothing happens.

You have your own reason to dislike or wish to ignore the GPL. Fernando has a different reason I think. Without doing too much pseudo-psychoanalysis, I feel there are many other reasons. Let's list a few:
- I may be bitten by it myself (probably wrong and easy to avoid anyway but it's easier to dismiss the rule rather than respecting it)
- it prevents the advance of the human kind (wrong, its goal is the opposite)
- great people in the past could not have produced their masterpieces if the GPL had existed (wrong)
- the GPL prevents the re-use of ideas (wrong)
- the GPL is another tool for big companies to lock their market (completely wrong)
- the GPL is viral, it contamines all it touches (wrong, you can use it along proprietary stuff)
- the author should not have protected his work with the GPL (Huh?)
- maybe the GPL cannot be enforced legally anyway (wrong)
- the GPL is used to fulfill dark motives (no amount of good faith can counter this argument, use it ad nauseam)
...
...

I think all of this should be considered very seriously by any author who is about to release his work under the GPL or another similar open source license. Because as soon as you release your work as open source it can and will probably be used in a way that is contrary to your intention. And chances are that:
- you will not be able to do anything
- you will not get support from the people who have benefited from your work



// Christophe

[BubbaTough]

- it prevents the advance of the human kind (wrong, its goal is the opposite)
- great people in the past could not have produced their masterpieces if the GPL had existed (wrong)
- the GPL prevents the re-use of ideas (wrong)
- the GPL is another tool for big companies to lock their market (completely wrong)
- the GPL is viral, it contamines all it touches (wrong, you can use it along proprietary stuff)
- the author should not have protected his work with the GPL (Huh?)
- maybe the GPL cannot be enforced legally anyway (wrong)
- the GPL is used to fulfill dark motives (no amount of good faith can counter this argument, use it ad nauseam)
.

Since most of this list is wrong (not that people do not use these arguments, just that they are invalid arguments) I will add a few that I think are more relevant to most programmers' decision on whether to violate GPL.


1. Obeying GPL makes it harder to make the best program in the world (taking other people's code makes it easier on you, and not giving back makes it harder on them)
2. Obeying GPL makes it harder to get credit for your success (people that write their own engine from scratch [or are perceived to have done so] seem to get more public credit).
3. Obeying GPL makes it harder to turn commercial should the program turn out to be strong enough.
4. When you publish your source it is annoying to have the feeling other people are taking your ideas and giving nothing in return.

I am not claiming these are good reasons to violate GPL, but I would suggest they are probably more influential (consciously or not) on programmer decisions related to violating GPL.

I think #4 can be particularly influential, which is why I think anyone that publishes their source should be strongly respected for their contribution, independent of the conditions they put on use of their code.

-Sam

[tiger]

- it prevents the advance of the human kind (wrong, its goal is the opposite)
- great people in the past could not have produced their masterpieces if the GPL had existed (wrong)
- the GPL prevents the re-use of ideas (wrong)
- the GPL is another tool for big companies to lock their market (completely wrong)
- the GPL is viral, it contamines all it touches (wrong, you can use it along proprietary stuff)
- the author should not have protected his work with the GPL (Huh?)
- maybe the GPL cannot be enforced legally anyway (wrong)
- the GPL is used to fulfill dark motives (no amount of good faith can counter this argument, use it ad nauseam)
.

Since most of this list is wrong (not that people do not use these arguments, just that they are invalid arguments) I will add a few that I think are more relevant to most programmers' decision on whether to violate GPL.


1. Obeying GPL makes it harder to make the best program in the world (taking other people's code makes it easier on you, and not giving back makes it harder on them)
2. Obeying GPL makes it harder to get credit for your success (people that write their own engine from scratch [or are perceived to have done so] seem to get more public credit).
3. Obeying GPL makes it harder to turn commercial should the program turn out to be strong enough.
4. When you publish your source it is annoying to have the feeling other people are taking your ideas and giving nothing in return.

I am not claiming these are good reasons to violate GPL, but I would suggest they are probably more influential (consciously or not) on programmer decisions related to violating GPL.

I think #4 can be particularly influential, which is why I think anyone that publishes their source should be strongly respected for their contribution, independent of the conditions they put on use of their code.

-Sam

I notice that Fabien Letouzey has tried to turn commercial after publishing Fruit 2.1 under the GPL and that this attempt has apparently failed, or maybe did not yield the expected returns.

I also notice that he has almost disappeared of the field after that and has shown little interest of what happened to his own code.

I have contacted Fabien but still do not have any answer from him. I had been warned that it sometimes takes a long time for him to answer so I just hope he will answer some day.

I do not know what he thinks and do not know his motives for giving his copyright on Fruit to the FSF. I do not know why he left.

The points you have mentionned are very true and I'm wondering if he has been affected by any of them, or even all of them.

At this point I do not know. Also, I would not reveal what he thinks if he told me not to talk publicly about it.



// Christophe

[tiger]

- it prevents the advance of the human kind (wrong, its goal is the opposite)
- great people in the past could not have produced their masterpieces if the GPL had existed (wrong)
- the GPL prevents the re-use of ideas (wrong)
- the GPL is another tool for big companies to lock their market (completely wrong)
- the GPL is viral, it contamines all it touches (wrong, you can use it along proprietary stuff)
- the author should not have protected his work with the GPL (Huh?)
- maybe the GPL cannot be enforced legally anyway (wrong)
- the GPL is used to fulfill dark motives (no amount of good faith can counter this argument, use it ad nauseam)
.

Since most of this list is wrong (not that people do not use these arguments, just that they are invalid arguments) I will add a few that I think are more relevant to most programmers' decision on whether to violate GPL.


1. Obeying GPL makes it harder to make the best program in the world (taking other people's code makes it easier on you, and not giving back makes it harder on them)
2. Obeying GPL makes it harder to get credit for your success (people that write their own engine from scratch [or are perceived to have done so] seem to get more public credit).
3. Obeying GPL makes it harder to turn commercial should the program turn out to be strong enough.
4. When you publish your source it is annoying to have the feeling other people are taking your ideas and giving nothing in return.

I am not claiming these are good reasons to violate GPL, but I would suggest they are probably more influential (consciously or not) on programmer decisions related to violating GPL.

I think #4 can be particularly influential, which is why I think anyone that publishes their source should be strongly respected for their contribution, independent of the conditions they put on use of their code.

-Sam

I notice that Fabien Letouzey has tried to turn commercial after publishing Fruit 2.1 under the GPL and that this attempt has apparently failed, or maybe did not yield the expected returns.

I also notice that he has almost disappeared of the field after that and has shown little interest of what happened to his own code.

I have contacted Fabien but still do not have any answer from him. I had been warned that it sometimes takes a long time for him to answer so I just hope he will answer some day.

I do not know what he thinks and do not know his motives for giving his copyright on Fruit to the FSF. I do not know why he left.

The points you have mentionned are very true and I'm wondering if he has been affected by any of them, or even all of them.

At this point I do not know. Also, I would not reveal what he thinks if he told me not to talk publicly about it.



// Christophe

I another thread someone has posted that he advised Fabien that he could not release a commercial, closed source version of Fruit. I was answering that this legal advice was wrong and that Fabien could have legally done that.

I do not know what happened, but when I submitted my post the message I was responding to had already been deleted. I can't remember the name of the poster and I'm wondering if he asked himself that his post should been removed or if something else happened. It's too bad because we have very few information about what happened to the commercial Fruit.



// Christophe

[pedrox]

I believe that the failure of Fruit comercial was mostly because that Fabien had no time to make this engine.

Also at that time was not the number one and even the free version, TOGA had the same level.