Fat Fritz 2

[connor_mcmonigle]

Go back and read the post on promissory estoppel. In short, if a work is in violation of the GPL, it doesn’t put all of its parts under the GPL unless a few things are true, such as the violating party owning the copyright to all of the parts that make up the work. So, for example, MikeB distributes some Android apps that use some of my nets. I own the copyright on those nets. If MikeB is found to be violating the GPL (unlikely, but for argument’s sake), that doesn’t change the fact that I own the copyright on those nets.

Hmm. By conveying the binaries with a GPLv3 license, the conveying party has licensed all components with a GPLv3 license, perhaps implicitly, correct? I don't see how promissory estoppel is applicable here.

[dkappe]

Go back and read the post on promissory estoppel. In short, if a work is in violation of the GPL, it doesn’t put all of its parts under the GPL unless a few things are true, such as the violating party owning the copyright to all of the parts that make up the work. So, for example, MikeB distributes some Android apps that use some of my nets. I own the copyright on those nets. If MikeB is found to be violating the GPL (unlikely, but for argument’s sake), that doesn’t change the fact that I own the copyright on those nets.

Hmm. By conveying the binaries with a GPLv3 license, the conveying party has licensed all components with a GPLv3 license, perhaps implicitly, correct? I don't see how promissory estoppel is applicable here.

Nope. Take the case where I combine some of Oracle’s proprietary software with some GPL software. I can’t release Oracle’s software under the GPL as it doesn’t belong to me.

[connor_mcmonigle]

Nope. Take the case where I combine some of Oracle’s proprietary software with some GPL software. I can’t release Oracle’s software under the GPL as it doesn’t belong to me.

You wouldn't be able to legally convey that software at all in my understanding, correct (as the licenses would be strictly incompatible)?

[gaard]

At least you are now acknowledging the fact (or possibility) that someone's work has been hijacked to be used in a GPL infringing software distribution money making scheme. I would call that progress.

I am acknowledging nothing of the sort. Just doing the lord’s work disabusing people of their magical GPL thinking.

There’s nothing wrong with people making money from GPL’d software. The GPL in fact calls for it. If you didn’t want that to happen, you should have used a different license.

Nobody said there was anything wrong with people making money from GPL'd software. Please pay attention. It's the entirety of the GPL that myself and other software developers are concerned with. You may not understand it all, but that does not make it any less binding. I don't care if ChessBase re-releases Stockfish 11 as Obese Fritz 3000 NextGen for $1,000,000 as long as they respect and comply with all relevant open-source licenses.

[dkappe]

Nobody said there was anything wrong with people making money from GPL'd software. Please pay attention. It's the entirety of the GPL that myself and other software developers are concerned with. You may not understand it all, but that does not make it any less binding. I don't care if ChessBase re-releases Stockfish 11 as Obese Fritz 3000 NextGen for $1,000,000 as long as they respect and comply with all relevant open-source licenses.

It’s clear that you’re suffering from magic wand GPL thinking. Pay attention.

[dkappe]

Nope. Take the case where I combine some of Oracle’s proprietary software with some GPL software. I can’t release Oracle’s software under the GPL as it doesn’t belong to me.

You wouldn't be able to legally convey that software at all in my understanding, correct (as the licenses would be strictly incompatible)?

Yep. Correct.

If I owned all of it, and you had relied on it to, say, build a business, and my reneging on the promise of the GPL would cause you harm, then the theory of promissory estoppel might apply.

[connor_mcmonigle]

Go back and read the post on promissory estoppel. In short, if a work is in violation of the GPL, it doesn’t put all of its parts under the GPL unless a few things are true, such as the violating party owning the copyright to all of the parts that make up the work. So, for example, MikeB distributes some Android apps that use some of my nets. I own the copyright on those nets. If MikeB is found to be violating the GPL (unlikely, but for argument’s sake), that doesn’t change the fact that I own the copyright on those nets.

Hmm. By conveying the binaries with a GPLv3 license, the conveying party has licensed all components with a GPLv3 license, perhaps implicitly, correct? I don't see how promissory estoppel is applicable here.

Nope. Take the case where I combine some of Oracle’s proprietary software with some GPL software. I can’t release Oracle’s software under the GPL as it doesn’t belong to me.

In fact, on further consideration, this argument doesn't make any sense (I'll admit there could be something I'm not understanding).

Here's the situation as I understand it:

ChessBase is conveying a binary under the GPLv3 license. Therefore, as a recipient of the binary, I have the freedom to do whatever I want with it, provided I both provide a source and attach a GPLv3 license to all those I convey it to in turn.

Your argument, in my understanding, is that some third party might have licensed the parameters included in the binary ChessBase is distributing under a different, GPLv3 incompatible, license. Therefore, ChessBase is illegally distributing the binary. Furthermore, I, as the recipient of the GPLv3 licensed binary from ChessBase or those having indirectly received the binary from ChessBase, would be at fault, legally, were I to extract the parameters from the binary.

This doesn't make any sense for two reasons:

1.
In the above description of the situation, I would not be at fault as ChessBase would be responsible for all damages incurred on said third party as I, as the unsuspecting recipient, could have had no way of knowing that ChessBase illegally distributed the binary to me.

2.
It is not possible to license numbers.

[gaard]

Nobody said there was anything wrong with people making money from GPL'd software. Please pay attention. It's the entirety of the GPL that myself and other software developers are concerned with. You may not understand it all, but that does not make it any less binding. I don't care if ChessBase re-releases Stockfish 11 as Obese Fritz 3000 NextGen for $1,000,000 as long as they respect and comply with all relevant open-source licenses.

It’s clear that you’re suffering from magic wand GPL thinking. Pay attention.

Please do elaborate. At least my doctor had the courtesy the tell my why I was suffering from my afflictions. If you want to dismiss the entirety of someone's arguments you will have to do much better than hand-waving.

[dkappe]

In fact, on further consideration, this argument doesn't make any sense (I'll admit there could be something I'm not understanding).

Here's the situation as I understand it:

ChessBase is conveying a binary under the GPLv3 license. Therefore, as a recipient of the binary, I have the freedom to do whatever I want with it, provided I both provide a source and attach a GPLv3 license to all those I convey it to in turn.

Your argument, in my understanding, is that some third party might have licensed the parameters included in the binary ChessBase is distributing under a different, GPLv3 incompatible, license. Therefore, ChessBase is illegally distributing the binary. Furthermore, I, as the recipient of the GPLv3 licensed binary from ChessBase or those having indirectly received the binary from ChessBase, would be at fault, legally, were I to extract the parameters from the binary.

This doesn't make any sense for two reasons:

1.
In the above description of the situation, I would not be at fault at ChessBase would be responsible for all damages incurred on said third party.

2.
It is not possible to license numbers.

Let me guess, you’re not a lawyer?

[connor_mcmonigle]

In fact, on further consideration, this argument doesn't make any sense (I'll admit there could be something I'm not understanding).

Here's the situation as I understand it:

ChessBase is conveying a binary under the GPLv3 license. Therefore, as a recipient of the binary, I have the freedom to do whatever I want with it, provided I both provide a source and attach a GPLv3 license to all those I convey it to in turn.

Your argument, in my understanding, is that some third party might have licensed the parameters included in the binary ChessBase is distributing under a different, GPLv3 incompatible, license. Therefore, ChessBase is illegally distributing the binary. Furthermore, I, as the recipient of the GPLv3 licensed binary from ChessBase or those having indirectly received the binary from ChessBase, would be at fault, legally, were I to extract the parameters from the binary.

This doesn't make any sense for two reasons:

1.
In the above description of the situation, I would not be at fault at ChessBase would be responsible for all damages incurred on said third party.

2.
It is not possible to license numbers.

Let me guess, you’re not a lawyer?

Correct Neither are you, though as you are speaking from a position of such authority on the subject, I would appreciate if you could explain how the above is incorrect.