GPL / GNU Licence enforcement

[pawnslinger]

As I have admitted in other threads here, I have obtained a copy of the source code to Fruit 2.1. Nowhere in the soure code was there to be found a copyright notice of any kind.

Uh:

- copying.txt
- readme.txt -> "Legal details"

These are sepeare files. The source code itself contains no copyright notice as far as I could find. It is normal, at least, for a program to display something like this:

(c) John Jones, 1998.

Such a notice is absent from the Fruit 2.1 source code files. The legal requirement for the notice says it must include at least 3 things, the copyright word or symbol, the name of the holder, and the date.

One interesting item... on ChessWiki, I found this interesting quotation:

Vasik Rajlich:
Yes, the publication of Fruit 2.1 was huge. Look at how many engines took a massive jump in its wake: Rybka, Hiarcs, Fritz, Zappa, Spike, List, and so on. I went through the Fruit 2.1 source code forwards and backwards and took many things.

http://chessprogramming.wikispaces.com/Fruit

I don't know when this became public knowledge, but it is very interesting.

Sincerely,
Ed

[pawnslinger]

In the previous message I fat fingered the word "seperate", but didn't notice until too late. Mea culpa!

One thing to be clear about. Fruit was copyright by Fabien, even though the files themselves did not contain any copyright notice. Any creative work is automatically copyright to the author.

But copyright notices are recommended, because of what may happen if the infringement case is brought to court. Some things may cause the severity of the damages to be lessened, and I believe that lack of proper copyright notice is one of those things that a court might take into account.

After re-reading the GPL, a couple of things seem clear to me. First, the FSF advises the author to copyright his/her work. And secondly, the GPL grants the right to modify the code, and redistribute... as long as it is done under the GPL. In the same manner as the original work.

Since copyright law covers derivative works, just like originals, I believe it is fair to say that any derivative work has at least two copyright holders. And that someone who uses source code under GPL to produce a commercial product owes a debt to the copyright holder of the original work.

That is to say, it is not okay under copyright law to take a novel written by James Patterson (as an example), change the names and fix the grammar and rename the book, then resell it as your original work.

But all of these questions can only be truly answered in the current case by Fabien consulting his own attorney.