Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:59:12 01/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 24, 1999 at 06:30:05, Ed Schröder wrote: >>>Hans, Johan you have my sympathy whatever Bob says in defence. >>>Fact is Crafty source code is freeware. Freeware is freeware. If Bob >>>(or others) don't like the negative side effects of freeware then don't >>>release it as freeware. > >>>If people pick Crafty's sources, make their own changes and give >>>the program an own name then that's perfectly legal. Adding all >>>kind of demands to the license agreement are not necessarily >>>binding. > >>>As far as I understand Dutch law it is perfectly legal to pick >>>Crafty's source-code, make changes, build an own GUI and >>>sell it. This might differ from country to country I don't know. > >>>The only thing Bob has a right to demand is that it should be >>>forbidden to release a 100% exact copy of the freeware >>>sources and give it a new name and/or sell it. > >>Are you saying that if you change only one line in the source code of crafty >>(for example if you change the value of pawn from 100 to 101) then it is not a >>100% exact copy so it is legal to sell it with a new name? > >>If this is the case then there is no value to the law that it should be >>forbidden to release a 100% exact copy and sell it. > >>I do not understand what is legal and what is not legal. > >>We agree that if you change everything in crafty then it is a different program > >>so it is legal. > >>It is not clear what is the minimal part of the source code you need to change >>for doing it legal. > > >>>I don't understand all the fuss about this topic. Many programs >>>are based on the GNU freeware sources. Never saw discussions >>>like this. Why is the GNU status different than Crafty status? > >>>As for tournaments, Crafty or GNU clones should be allowed >>>from the juridical point of view as simple as that. I can imagine >>>organizers might decide otherwise but they are taking a risk >>>concerning the juridical point of view. Freeware is freeware. In >>>the Crafty / GNU case all ideas behind the program are made >>>public so everybody is allowed to use it. You can not publish >>>your ideas in the newspaper and say, "I don't want you to >>>use it". > >>The problem is that if there is a big change only in the evaluation function >>then the moves are not going to be identical in big part of the cases so you >>cannot know if someone is using something that is almost identical to crafty. > >>I cannot see a way to force people to obey the law if you forbid doing something >>almost identical to crafty. > >>Uri > >Whatever you put in the newspaper is public domain information. You >can't complain when somebody uses this information for his own good. >That's what the GNU and Crafty sources are. It is spread on multiple >ftp servers on the Internet free downloadable for everybody. > >And *if* you can proof you have spend a reasonable amount of time >and energy (such as an own GUI and engine) you even have full right >to sell it. This is wrong. But to understand why, I'd like to suggest that you go download a copy of Linux, and then _sell_ it to some companies where you live. _then_ you will find out just how wrong your interpretation of the GPL agreement really is. >Sofar the legal part. > >The "license agreement" of the Crafty sources is simply wrong. Bob >distributes the Crafty sources as freeware but apparently you have >to stick to a lot of exceptions uncommon to freeware. It's like putting >something in the newspaper and say, "You may not use this information >in the following cases..." That is not how it works. You do know that you can't copy something verbatim from a newspaper and use it as though _you_ wrote it? Ie 'plagarism'??? > >If Bob wants to distribute his sources including special wishes then >the freeware label isn't a correct one. He might consider that people >who want the Crafty sources contact him and after they have agreed >to his special rules Bob simply reveals how to get the sources. > >I like to emphasize that I am a supporter of the Crafty-sources approach >as it is good for the progress of computer chess but I mainly jumped in >the discussion because I feel that injustice is done to Bionic putting them >on a public trial for no other reason than a flawed license agreement. the license agreement isn't flawed. _huge_ corporations around the world are using linux now. Some computer companies (gateway, dell, IBM, Compaq) are distributing linux on high-end server platforms. And they abide by the strict GPL everyone uses, because it is most definitely a legally binding contract.. you use it, you must abide by the complete GNU GPL. You don't like the GNU GPL agreement, you remove Linux and find something else. And this GPL has stood the test of time, _and_ the test of courts in several cases... > >It happened before and I fear it will happen again if nothing is done >to the real problem. Apparently the Crafty sources are not freeware. > >Just my opinion. > >Kind regards, > >Ed Schroder
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.