GPL infringement

[Anil]

If a program under GPL has the following lines in its source:
1. Blank line (\n and/or \r)
2. #define <stdio.h> (or similar usual #defines)

Then, wouldn't any other program having these lines be in violation of GPL.

Even though these lines may or may not be copied from the GPL program source. As anyone would be able to show the similarity in these statements by comparing the 2 sources.

Also, what about many other common variable declarations (int i=0; char ch) and other keywords and other statements like ( return 0; ) ?

As I understand, the purpose of GPL is to see that the author/programmer is properly credited and other should not claim his work. But, they should provide clear-cut examples as to what 2 codes are in violation of GPL and what does not constitute violation of GPL.

[Zach Wegner]

If a program under GPL has the following lines in its source:
1. Blank line (\n and/or \r)
2. #define <stdio.h> (or similar usual #defines)

Then, wouldn't any other program having these lines be in violation of GPL.

Not any more than a book having the word 'the' would be in violation of copyright...

[kranium]

well of course, Anil...

no one would suggest such a line of code constitute proof
please, give us a little credit....

is that what you think we presented?

please read this, then we can discuss it with you.
http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23275

otherwise, it's a just a waste of thread space and time.

[chrisw]

well of course, Anil...

no one would suggest such a line of code constitute proof
please, give us a little credit....

Well, Christophe talks of 4000 lines of code constituting proof

Can we see these 4000 lines of consecutive, identical code, please?

[Anil]

Forgetting the current Fruit-Strelka-Rybka GPL confusion for sometime, I would like to understand GPL better. With some simple and clear examples the GPL / FSF folks should be able to help a lot of programmers.

[kranium]

well of course, Anil...

no one would suggest such a line of code constitute proof
please, give us a little credit....

Well, Christophe talks of 4000 lines of code constituting proof

Can we see these 4000 lines of consecutive, identical code, please?

cmon chris,

no we do not have 4000 lines,
...if 4000 lines are needed by the chess community in order to constitute proof, perhaps it 'would' have been be listed in the GPL guidelines i have requested, if it existed, and this whole thing could been avoided, as we would not have talked about it prematurely.

you know he used 4000 'metaphorically' for lack of a better word.

[kranium]

Forgetting the current Fruit-Strelka-Rybka GPL confusion for sometime, I would like to understand GPL better. With some simple and clear examples the GPL / FSF folks should be able to help a lot of programmers.

Aha!

thank-you anil

and argument in favor of GPL guidelines!

[Anil]

well of course, Anil...

no one would suggest such a line of code constitute proof
please, give us a little credit....

is that what you think we presented?

please read this, then we can discuss it with you.
http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23275

otherwise, it's a just a waste of thread space and time.

I have considerable respect for all the programmers and other wise people posting their views on this forum. I have read most of the posts, including the one you have suggested. But, my thought in this particular case is that:
"One cannot show GPL violation (with 100% surety) without comparing the 2 source codes in question."
Hence, all the attempts to try to show similarities by disassembling the binaries may not be enough to convince the GPL infringement.

[kranium]

well of course, Anil...

no one would suggest such a line of code constitute proof
please, give us a little credit....

is that what you think we presented?

please read this, then we can discuss it with you.
http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23275

otherwise, it's a just a waste of thread space and time.

I have considerable respect for all the programmers and other wise people posting their views on this forum. I have read most of the posts, including the one you have suggested. But, my thought in this particular case is that:
"One cannot show GPL violation (with 100% surety) without comparing the 2 source codes in question."
Hence, all the attempts to try to show similarities by disassembling the binaries may not be enough to convince the GPL infringement.

yes...good point. there is no clear definition of what constitues proof.
that's in fact been a huge problem here in the discussion.

and it's unlikely that the FSF is going to appear suddenly and pronounce it's opinion. even less likely that it will ever be presented in front of a judge. (i think chrisw has made this point).

what's important is the 'public' opinion here in the community. they will ultimately decide what i happens i believe. unless someone, or some group decides to spend all their money on lawyers and pursue a case...maybe risking their reputation as well.

[chrisw]

well of course, Anil...

no one would suggest such a line of code constitute proof
please, give us a little credit....

Well, Christophe talks of 4000 lines of code constituting proof

Can we see these 4000 lines of consecutive, identical code, please?

cmon chris,

no we do not have 4000 lines,
...if 4000 lines are needed by the chess community in order to constitute proof, perhaps it 'would' have been be listed in the GPL guidelines i have requested, if it existed, and this whole thing could been avoided, as we would not have talked about it prematurely.

you know he used 4000 'metaphorically' for lack of a better word.

If 4000 is metaphorical, what's the real number?