Eman chooses to cease distribution to comply with GPLv3

[dkappe]

From the charter -

…

5. Are not of questionable legal status.

You are not confusing one meaning of “legal” for another, I hope.

So the Stockfish lawsuit against ChessBase is of questionable legal status, as it has not been decided, whereas suggesting a scheme to commit fraud is of questionable legals status as in “criminal.” I hope you understand the distinction.

The context of this thread is not Chessbase but authors that break the law and thus the charter, not making public the source code.

You of course don’t mean that it is criminal but rather an alleged violation of a license (generally contract/civil law). Yes?

[Albert Silver]

From the charter -

…

5. Are not of questionable legal status.

You are not confusing one meaning of “legal” for another, I hope.

So the Stockfish lawsuit against ChessBase is of questionable legal status, as it has not been decided, whereas suggesting a scheme to commit fraud is of questionable legals status as in “criminal.” I hope you understand the distinction.

The context of this thread is not Chessbase but authors that break the law and thus the charter, not making public the source code.

Uh...no. The charter covers responses and messages by members, and whether those messages and responses are legal or illegal (such as providing links to pirated works). Only. Whether the author is locked up in Alcatraz for crimes against humanity is utterly irrelevant to the charter.

[Rebel]

From the charter -

…

5. Are not of questionable legal status.

You are not confusing one meaning of “legal” for another, I hope.

So the Stockfish lawsuit against ChessBase is of questionable legal status, as it has not been decided, whereas suggesting a scheme to commit fraud is of questionable legals status as in “criminal.” I hope you understand the distinction.

The context of this thread is not Chessbase but authors that break the law and thus the charter, not making public the source code.

You of course don’t mean that it is criminal but rather an alleged violation of a license (generally contract/civil law). Yes?

Of course I don’t mean that it is criminal but rather a deliberated violation of a license (generally contract/civil law). Yes?

[dkappe]

From the charter -

…

5. Are not of questionable legal status.

You are not confusing one meaning of “legal” for another, I hope.

So the Stockfish lawsuit against ChessBase is of questionable legal status, as it has not been decided, whereas suggesting a scheme to commit fraud is of questionable legals status as in “criminal.” I hope you understand the distinction.

The context of this thread is not Chessbase but authors that break the law and thus the charter, not making public the source code.

Uh...no. The charter covers responses and messages by members, and whether those messages and responses are legal or illegal (such as providing links to pirated works). Only. Whether the author is locked up in Alcatraz for crimes against humanity is utterly irrelevant to the charter.

So this part of the charter does really apply to the last dozen messages or so. That’s why I asked. It seemed like a non sequiter.

[Rebel]

From the charter -

…

5. Are not of questionable legal status.

You are not confusing one meaning of “legal” for another, I hope.

So the Stockfish lawsuit against ChessBase is of questionable legal status, as it has not been decided, whereas suggesting a scheme to commit fraud is of questionable legals status as in “criminal.” I hope you understand the distinction.

The context of this thread is not Chessbase but authors that break the law and thus the charter, not making public the source code.

Uh...no. The charter covers responses and messages by members, and whether those messages and responses are legal or illegal (such as providing links to pirated works). Only. Whether the author is locked up in Alcatraz for crimes against humanity is utterly irrelevant to the charter.

It's about those who defend those authors.

[Albert Silver]

From the charter -

…

5. Are not of questionable legal status.

You are not confusing one meaning of “legal” for another, I hope.

So the Stockfish lawsuit against ChessBase is of questionable legal status, as it has not been decided, whereas suggesting a scheme to commit fraud is of questionable legals status as in “criminal.” I hope you understand the distinction.

The context of this thread is not Chessbase but authors that break the law and thus the charter, not making public the source code.

Uh...no. The charter covers responses and messages by members, and whether those messages and responses are legal or illegal (such as providing links to pirated works). Only. Whether the author is locked up in Alcatraz for crimes against humanity is utterly irrelevant to the charter.

It's about those who defend those authors.

Defending those authors is not against the charter either.

[dkappe]

From the charter -

…

5. Are not of questionable legal status.

You are not confusing one meaning of “legal” for another, I hope.

So the Stockfish lawsuit against ChessBase is of questionable legal status, as it has not been decided, whereas suggesting a scheme to commit fraud is of questionable legals status as in “criminal.” I hope you understand the distinction.

The context of this thread is not Chessbase but authors that break the law and thus the charter, not making public the source code.

Uh...no. The charter covers responses and messages by members, and whether those messages and responses are legal or illegal (such as providing links to pirated works). Only. Whether the author is locked up in Alcatraz for crimes against humanity is utterly irrelevant to the charter.

It's about those who defend those authors.

Where have I defended those authors? And besides, defending someone is not against the charter.

I was going to vote for you as moderator. Doesn’t seem like such a good idea now.

[Sopel]

If all the clone authors ignore him, as they should

Thankfully not everyone is so full of themselves as you and Ivan is happy to cooperate and fix the issues. I'm not even gonna compare the cases of Eman and CorChess, because in the latter case it's mostly negligence and it seems we can easly come up with a solution that will satisfy everyone.

[AndrewGrant]

Is there something wrong with getting people to at least follow the spirit of the GPLv3, Dkappe? Is it really that much to ask that engines derived from Stockfish have 1. Source that is available upon request (or more generally and more easily, on Github) and 2. A License which acknowledges Stockfish as the origin of the project?

Its not a gotcha, but I swear you never give a real answer to anything:
Is Eman in violation of the GPLv3 by refusing to provide source to users to whom Omar has given a binary?
Is it okay for Stockfish authors to ask that Omar either 1. Cease distrubtion of Eman, or 2. Follow the above requirements?
Lets find some common ground in this crazy world, Dkappe.

[dkappe]

Its not a gotcha, but I swear you never give a real answer to anything:
Is Eman in violation of the GPLv3 by refusing to provide source to users to whom Omar has given a binary?

Andy,

I can only assume that you haven’t bothered to read the thread. You can see this post above.

1. While many of the stockfish supporters here and elsewhere have a wobbly understanding of the GPL, I think they’re on solid ground with regard to Eman.

Now I have no special knowledge about Eman beyond what is public. It seems likely that he violated the terms of the GPL, but I don’t know it for a fact. That is why I say “I think” rather than “I know.”

Isn’t this around the time you call me a name or something?