WCCC 2024 participants are announced

[hgm]

One could say SF people never wanted to be in any part with WCCC being a grief, but their code, their right. Having it under GPL does not nullify any authorship, if people want to win a prize with it, they'd better be entitled to represent.

That might be your opinion, but it has no legal basis, and the ICGA and the Stockfish team (by the quoted word of Vondele) obviously have a different opinion.

[noobpwnftw]

One could say SF people never wanted to be in any part with WCCC being a grief, but their code, their right. Having it under GPL does not nullify any authorship, if people want to win a prize with it, they'd better be entitled to represent.

That might be your opinion, but it has no legal basis, and the ICGA and the Stockfish team (by the quoted word of Vondele) obviously have a different opinion.

Funny, the fraud contains code that I wrote and is not a part of SF, while I have every right to express my opinion being an SF author. Since when does your opinion matter, however, on specifically the "legal basis" part?

[hgm]

Whether anything has a legal basis is a verifiable fact, not an opinion.

So your beef is that you are not mentioned in the entry form as one of the authors of Shashchess? I am sure this can be easily corrected if you inform the right person. Whining about it here won't do any good...

[noobpwnftw]

Whether anything has a legal basis is a verifiable fact, not an opinion.

So your beef is that you are not mentioned in the entry form as one of the authors of Shashchess? I am sure this can be easily corrected if you inform the right person. No whining about it here won't do any good...

Even funnier, because it is not only listed but also advertised as a point of "significant originality", which I very much like to not be a part of, nor to be represented by a fraud. While I will certainly see to it, it is people like you who so predictbly behaving like an advocate for such fraud to happen since long ago.

[hgm]

When you released the code in question under GPL, it is of longer relevant how you want or not want it to be used. The GPL is very explicit about that.

Fraud is a criminal offense, and if you are defrauded your only recourse is to sue the person committing it. Otherwise accusing people of fraud in a public text is known as libel, which is a criminal offense in itself.

[noobpwnftw]

When you released the code in question as GPL, it is of longer relevant how you want or not want it to be used. The GPL is very explicit about that.

Fraud is a criminal offense, and if you are defrauded your only recourse is to sue the person committing it. Otherwise accusing people of fraud in a public text is known as libel, which is a criminal offense in itself.

Armchair lawyer again? Let me know when you actually have the entitlement to represent this fraud.

[chrisw]

When you released the code in question as GPL, it is of longer relevant how you want or not want it to be used. The GPL is very explicit about that.

Fraud is a criminal offense, and if you are defrauded your only recourse is to sue the person committing it. Otherwise accusing people of fraud in a public text is known as libel, which is a criminal offense in itself.

Stick to academia, law is not your strong point.

1. Your recourse to someone committing fraud on you is to report it to the police. After a conviction, then sue in a civil court for the loss and damages.

2. Libel laws are very different depending on jurisdiction. It's not necessarily libellous to make a fraud accusation, there's also a public interest defence and in US freedom of speech rights. Libel is usually a civil offence, it takes special circumstances (in some jurisdictions) to raise it to criminal libel.

[noobpwnftw]

It's just so funny that our armchair lawyer thinks GPL entitles anyone with the same rights as an original author in the context of law, and we actually had been through this with a real lawyer while sueing another fraud.

I think there is already enough exposed here. People can see for themselves what kind of wildness are we dealing with.

[hgm]

1. Your recourse to someone committing fraud on you is to report it to the police. After a conviction, then sue in a civil court for the loss and damages.

Well, like I said, it is a criminal offense.

2. Libel laws are very different depending on jurisdiction. It's not necessarily libellous to make a fraud accusation, there's also a public interest defence and in US freedom of speech rights. Libel is usually a civil offence, it takes special circumstances (in some jurisdictions) to raise it to criminal libel.

I don't think freedom of speech extends to libel even in the U.S.. If you make any accusations you'd better be sure that they will stick, because that something is 'not necessarily libellous' is something completely different from 'never libellous'.

[hgm]

It's just so funny that our armchair lawyer thinks GPL entitles anyone with the same rights as an original author in the context of law, and we actually had been through this with a real lawyer while sueing another fraud.

That is the case that was settled out of court, right?

If you are so confident, by all means go to court, suing the ICGA for allowing an engine to participate in a tourney they organize that contained some code you released under GPL. Thenw e can all have a big laugh.