Eman chooses to cease distribution to comply with GPLv3

[AndrewGrant]

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?

You manage to never take a stance on anything. Its impressive. You should run for office in addition to talkchess mod.

[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.

Defending those authors is not against the charter either.

There are Stockfish derivatives that deliberately refuse to disobey the GPL by not making their source code public for all to see, as it is obliged. We all know that's against the law. With that in mind those who deliberately defend what's of questionable legal status are subject to moderation following the charter.

5. Are not of questionable legal status.

[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.

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

I was speaking in general, not about you.

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

[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.

There are Stockfish derivatives that deliberately refuse to disobey the GPL by not making their source code public for all to see, as it is obliged. We all know that's against the law. With that in mind those who deliberately defend what's of questionable legal status are subject to moderation following the charter.

5. Are not of questionable legal status.

No, they are not subject to moderation. You are quite confused on the meaning of that line.
It pertains only to the legality of the post.
If the post contains pirated links it is subject to moderation. It is not a carte blanche to curtail and censor freedom of speech and thought. I take it you will also favor censoring anyone who defends Vas, or others?

[dkappe]

You manage to never take a stance on anything. Its impressive. You should run for office in addition to talkchess mod.

Reading comprehension is so underrated as an important life skill. First you missed and then willfully misunderstood my post from earlier stating that I thought the Stockfish project was correct in claiming that Eman had violated their GPL license.

Then you either missed or misunderstood my post withdrawing from the talkchess mod elections.

I do think remedial reading comprehension classes are available. Perhaps you can treat yourself?

[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.

Defending those authors is not against the charter either.

There are Stockfish derivatives that deliberately refuse to disobey the GPL by not making their source code public for all to see, as it is obliged. We all know that's against the law. With that in mind those who deliberately defend what's of questionable legal status are subject to moderation following the charter.

5. Are not of questionable legal status.

No, they are not subject to moderation. You are quite confused on the meaning of that line.
It pertains only to the legality of the post.
If the post contains pirated links it is subject to moderation. It is not a carte blanche to curtail and censor freedom of speech and thought. I take it you will also favor censoring anyone who defends Vas, or others?

Do you understand the difference between naked facts and controversial issues? Releasing a self declared Stockfish derivative without source code is a naked fact.

[dkappe]

Do you understand the difference between naked facts and controversial issues? Releasing a self declared Stockfish derivative without source code is a naked fact.

Having just gone back and read your posts on the Vas/Rybka case, forgive me if I don’t consider your judgement about facts, naked or otherwise, state of the art.

[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.

There are Stockfish derivatives that deliberately refuse to disobey the GPL by not making their source code public for all to see, as it is obliged. We all know that's against the law. With that in mind those who deliberately defend what's of questionable legal status are subject to moderation following the charter.

5. Are not of questionable legal status.

No, they are not subject to moderation. You are quite confused on the meaning of that line.
It pertains only to the legality of the post.
If the post contains pirated links it is subject to moderation. It is not a carte blanche to curtail and censor freedom of speech and thought. I take it you will also favor censoring anyone who defends Vas, or others?

Do you understand the difference between naked facts and controversial issues? Releasing a self declared Stockfish derivative without source code is a naked fact.

It is completely irrelevant. The charter forbids illegal CONTENT in posts, that is all. My guess is that when you read 1984, you supported Big Brother and the Thought Police, and not Winston.

[Rebel]

Do you understand the difference between naked facts and controversial issues? Releasing a self declared Stockfish derivative without source code is a naked fact.

Having just gone back and read your posts on the Vas/Rybka case, forgive me if I don’t consider your judgement about facts, naked or otherwise, state of the art.

The Vas/Rybka case is controversial, not a fact.

[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.

Defending those authors is not against the charter either.

There are Stockfish derivatives that deliberately refuse to disobey the GPL by not making their source code public for all to see, as it is obliged. We all know that's against the law. With that in mind those who deliberately defend what's of questionable legal status are subject to moderation following the charter.

5. Are not of questionable legal status.

No, they are not subject to moderation. You are quite confused on the meaning of that line.
It pertains only to the legality of the post.
If the post contains pirated links it is subject to moderation. It is not a carte blanche to curtail and censor freedom of speech and thought. I take it you will also favor censoring anyone who defends Vas, or others?

Do you understand the difference between naked facts and controversial issues? Releasing a self declared Stockfish derivative without source code is a naked fact.

It is completely irrelevant. The charter forbids illegal CONTENT in posts, that is all. My guess is that when you read 1984, you supported Big Brother and the Thought Police, and not Winston.

Breaking the GPL is theft. Posts in support of burglary are not according the charter.

I know that a lot of people wants these illegal engines anyway.

And that is a problem.