CCRL/CEGT Hypocritical

[hgm]

Less penalty assumes a lesser crime, that's how justice systems usually work, aren't they?

Not sure what you mean by "lesser crime". In law a lesser crime would be _defined_ as carrying a lower sentence, so your remark would make no sense. If it would mean "less damaging to society" it would of course not be true. Usually you get a much lower sentence for men-slaughter than for embezzling a couple of thousands of euros. Penalties are not only based on the damage the crime does, but also on the profit they offer to the perpetrator (temptation) and the chances to get caught. And in all cases I don't see the relevance for the issue at hand.

Maybe it's not justice what you are talking about? And you are completely twisting the roles here, blaming a thing which even in justice would be hardly punishable, defending a more punishable act. I don't think it would be meaningful to go beyond justice, to some moral considerations, as even there the things would not favour you.

This gives me the impression that we are not living in the same universe. Hardly punsihable? Infringement of copyrights is heavily punishable! It can cost you billions of dollars. And what "more punishable act"? Using algorithms published in GPL'd code is not punishable at all, it is perfectly legal. So who of us is twsting things???

[Laskos]

Not sure what you mean by "lesser crime". In law a lesser crime would be _defined_ as carrying a lower sentence, so your remark would make no sense.

Thus my tautology makes no sense , your crap ---

(***)
Not sure what point you are trying to make. "Crimes with a smaller probability to get caught are less serious crimes", is that it?

makes a lot of sense We are not talking about smaller probabilities, but of a smaller crime, as defined by my tautology.

This gives me the impression that we are not living in the same universe. Hardly punsihable? Infringement of copyrights is heavily punishable! It can cost you billions of dollars. And what "more punishable act"? Using algorithms published in GPL'd code is not punishable at all, it is perfectly legal. So who of us is twsting things???

I have to repost what I already wrote, you may become senile, after admitting what I wrote by replying previous (***) gibberish.

"As long as we can refer to justice, it's easier to prove the copyright infringement of a patent (or GPL software) than a decompile infringement (which violates copyright). First charge is primary, second is indirect. Maybe not the justice is what you have in your mind. Second, commercially using GPL violation is a prima facia evidence and accusation.

Kai
"

I don't really know what are you twisting here according to your intimate beliefs, but it's pretty clear that legally the case against Rybka is stronger than the case against Ippos. If Fruit author didn't complain, and Rybka's author raised a voice, that's entirely a question of character, the fact is Vas would be willing to prosecute Ippo authors but is unable, Fabien would have a better chance, but he didn't even try some silly attacks against Rybka.

Kai

[hgm]

Indeed, it does not make much sense to post a tautology, and attempt to start a discussion about it.

Look, you can do all the name calling you want, and yell 'twisting' a thousand time, blabber about justice, but the bottom line remains this:

"having innovative ideas from Fruit to improve the strength of his engine" is not a violation of the GPL, or any other copyright law, and if you cannot understand that, you are from another universe, or at least another planet.

[Carotino]

You don't seem to understand how different the alleged cases of Ippolit vs Rybka 3 and Rybka vs Fruit are. You talk about them as if they are exactly the same. While they are in fact vastly different:

Fruit was an open-source project. The code and ideas were made public by the author, and everyone was free to take and use them. If Rybka was based on Fruit, this was totally legal. Its author was known and addressble...

I am sorry, but this is a legal absurdity. Fruit 2.1 is covered under G.N.U. - G.P.L. Licence. The GNU-G.P.L. licence does not say that!
Please read carefully the license, that legally binding international, and you will see that what you said is wrong.

Who uses portions of code or open source code, is obliged - by law! - to publish the source code.

Roberto Munter

[Carotino]

I believe that the legal principle, valid for all countries of the world, is this: innocent until proven guilty. All these accusations (Rybka Vs. Fruit, Ippolit Vs Rybka, Houdini Vs. Ippolit) are just the result of gossip.
If anyone has the test, please give ... but I believe that none of these "public Inquisitors" he has!

I hear many who speak of "disassemble code, " as if it were the easiest thing in the world! Those who understand at least some programming knows that this is not true! Also know the difference between "clone"and "fork", including copy code or copy ideas ... They are completely different things!

The fact that we want to exclude (or include) the engines, according to rumors, it seems little sign of seriousness. It also gives rise to suspicion, because in this way you can exclude some motor "uncomfortable. " Just say the word "clone"and all are shocked! Then the fact that this is true or not, seems not to care much ...

Roberto Munter.

[hgm]

I am sorry, but this is a legal absurdity. Fruit 2.1 is covered under G.N.U. - G.P.L. Licence. The GNU-G.P.L. licence does not say that!
Please read carefully the license, that legally binding international, and you will see that what you said is wrong.

Who uses portions of code or open source code, is obliged - by law! - to publish the source code.

Roberto Munter

We are not talking about using code here. The 'accusation' is "having innovative ideas from Fruit to improve the strength of his engine". Ideas and algorithms are not protected by copyright, and the GPL does not say anything about them.

So, yes, you are wrong, and I do now what is in the GPL, thank you.