If I say something wrong is because I'm Italian, not native English speaking and it's difficult for me to follow and react to all your legal confabulations
Best regards, Alex
Moderator: Ras
Andy,AndrewGrant wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 7:56 am
New paradox: If Albert Silver illegally distributes a Dkappe network, will Dkappe:
A) Defend Albert by posting "hot-takes" about copyright law that contradict his others postings
B) Call it an open violation, when in all previous cases he refuses to be anything but a milk-toast fence sitter
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegalAndrewGrant wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 7:56 amNew paradox: If Albert Silver illegally distributes a Dkappe network, will Dkappe:dkappe wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 8:09 pmWhat is CF? I certainly don’t distribute anything under that name. Dark Horse is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/
If you received it embedded in an engine, I’d like to know who violated the license.
A) Defend Albert by posting "hot-takes" about copyright law that contradict his others postings
B) Call it an open violation, when in all previous cases he refuses to be anything but a milk-toast fence sitter
Interesting and easy to understanddkappe wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 8:44 amAndy,AndrewGrant wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 7:56 am
New paradox: If Albert Silver illegally distributes a Dkappe network, will Dkappe:
A) Defend Albert by posting "hot-takes" about copyright law that contradict his others postings
B) Call it an open violation, when in all previous cases he refuses to be anything but a milk-toast fence sitter
I guess I’ll have to repeat myself yet again. Happy to do it in the hopes that you will eventually learn.
1. Violating a license is generally not illegal. It is a matter of contract law, not criminal law.
2. If someone violates a license, they should suffer the consequences.
3. The distribution of the corrected FF2 adheres to both the letter and spirit of the GPLv3. There is nothing to defend.
Very good. Breaking a contract is not against the law or “illegal,” although it is governed by contract law. Clear enough? You may want to go with the OED or a more substantial dictionary.AndrewGrant wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 8:54 amhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegalAndrewGrant wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 7:56 amNew paradox: If Albert Silver illegally distributes a Dkappe network, will Dkappe:dkappe wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 8:09 pmWhat is CF? I certainly don’t distribute anything under that name. Dark Horse is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/
If you received it embedded in an engine, I’d like to know who violated the license.
A) Defend Albert by posting "hot-takes" about copyright law that contradict his others postings
B) Call it an open violation, when in all previous cases he refuses to be anything but a milk-toast fence sitter
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegaldkappe wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 10:20 amVery good. Breaking a contract is not against the law or “illegal,” although it is governed by contract law. Clear enough? You may want to go with the OED or a more substantial dictionary.AndrewGrant wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 8:54 amhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegalAndrewGrant wrote: ↑Sat Aug 28, 2021 7:56 amNew paradox: If Albert Silver illegally distributes a Dkappe network, will Dkappe:dkappe wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 8:09 pmWhat is CF? I certainly don’t distribute anything under that name. Dark Horse is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/
If you received it embedded in an engine, I’d like to know who violated the license.
A) Defend Albert by posting "hot-takes" about copyright law that contradict his others postings
B) Call it an open violation, when in all previous cases he refuses to be anything but a milk-toast fence sitter
Copyright infringement is certainly illegal.
A lawyer of my acquaintance expressed it this way: if you can go to jail for it, it’s illegal.
If you can go to jail for it, it is criminal and illegal. If it breaches tort, contract, or property law, it is still certainly illegal. Arguing semantics isn't doing any favors for ChessBase at this point.
Mercifully, the supposed lawsuit isn’t being tried in this kangaroo court but in an actual court. What we say here (other than utterances made by SF project members) doesn’t matter one way or another.