What should Robert do? (read post first before you vote)

[hgm]

Yes, except if he included some GPLed parts in his program. Then he has to publish them (and only them), ....

No!

Then he would have to publish the whole program!

[Rebel]

Folks,

I hate to see Robert dragged through the mud every time and this poll is meant to suggest some constructive solutions and to express your feelings as a guide for him what to do. But first allow me to put things in a historic nutshell before you cast your vote.

LOL. This thread has become hilarious, internet forums at their best .
To add to the general hilarity, let's make a deal: if you can provide clarity about the origin of IPPOLIT, I will provide more details about the origin of Houdini.

Cherio,
Robert

Glad you enjoy the show, if it gets boring you know how to end it.

[Lavir]

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-trans ... d-you-know

As always you did put a link without either reading anything at all of what is written in it, as you have done the other time with Hyper Threading.

That article talks about translations in general, and when you talk about a translation you usually refer to those done to the literary works, and in fact in that article it is talked about the interpretation effect of a translation, that is in work ONLY in such works.

If instead of always pretending to be right also when you obviously know nothing of the issue at hand you would just for a moment meditate a little on what the sentence "Intellectual Property" means, maybe you would already understand the difference yourself.

I will make you two examples in the hope that you will actually ponder a little about them before arguing for the sake of arguing as you many times do.

- Translation of a literary work -

Let's take for example the translation of a poem of Baudelaire. Here the translation in another language has the same value of the poem itself, being the form of the writing (that's addressed specifically by the translation) a part of the value of the poem itself. The rhythm, style, sonority etc. of the poem have the same value (if not more in some cases) than the meaning of the same, hence the translation itself acquire value in itself, it can stand as itself as a work of its own and for this has intellectual property value.

To make this type of translation, in fact, it is not of everybody, even having the necessary means (as knowledge of both languages). You need to understand perfectly poetry and have ability to put the form consonant with the original, and it requires an *intellectual* (in the specific term) along a material one. It is not a case, in fact, that most of the translators of poems are poets themselves.

- Translation of a script in a conference -

Let's take for example here a translation of a conference of a politician. Here the form of the work has no value whatsoever outside the meaning of the same. You can freely alter wording, for example, as long as the meaning remains intact. Here the translation cannot stand on its own, it has no value in itself: it is just a shell that has value only along the meaning of the script. It is like a dress changed depending on the nationality of who you are going to meet but the person remains the same or like a futuristic filter that automatically change words depending on the nationality of the reader. There's no *intellectual* work therein, it is just material execution.

You would be astounded to know how many translations of this type, in fact, result in the same exact way also when lenghty, just because of the way they are approached. They are done in a literal way, very similar to how an automatic translator works only with good grammatical connections. There's no artistic or intellectual work (in the specific term used) therein, only material execution, hence NO intellectual property at all in it.

- Morale -

Obviously translating captions pertains to example #2, and not certainly to one. But naturally you can put a "copyright (C)" wherever you want, but you know, a thing is writing it, another is enforcing the same.

You could do whatever you want but you could never enforce a license copyright in translating captions, you would get only derided.

P.S: Btw, I know this from experience, not just from common sense, as if you did read something I wrote you would have understood.

[JuLieN]

Yes, except if he included some GPLed parts in his program. Then he has to publish them (and only them), ....

No!

Then he would have to publish the whole program!

You are right. I had in mind the example of a big commercial program making use of some GPL parts for small external functions (for example a video game making use of a GPLed compression library or codec). Then only this library or codec's source, and modifications, should be made available to anyone who requests it.

But for a chess program it is different: you can't separate the borrowed GPL code from the main function of your program. The GPL license sees it as an "extension" of the GPL program and requests that you share your sources (which wasn't the case with the example I had in mind here above).

I stand corrected. Precision is important, especially when it can have crucial consequences like in our field. Thanks for your eye, HG.

[Lavir]

I hate that this thread is polluted with these denials. This is not even in question so it's not interesting.

Oh... good!

Another post of a guy that wants to play the intelligent and smart, subtly offending and saying what's interesting or not in what the other said and yet understanding absolutely nothing at all of what the hell he said.

My point was not to deny anything at all, but just to make understand that it's difficult to enforce legally something as that (even if you are 100% sure) because: A) you have to prove that the person used code made by Norman/Milos alone - B) that code must have a copyright that it's enforceable in its own (and so NOT translating captions as I explained in the post above, that still pertains to the previous license, i.e. free) - C) you must also prove that that code could not be implemented by anybody in the same way.

In short: almost impossible and so, all things considered both the Ippolit freeware code and the so-called GPL code by Norman are ipso-facto public domain in the present state.

Do you understand now? Good. Still thinking it was a banality and/or a "denial" post?

P.S.: Your reply about the 1 ply depth has nothing to do with this (hence you didn't understand nothing) because both the free and GPL code produce the same result there.

P.S.S: Before presuming you are more intelligent than me and what I wrote is a banality, maybe you want to check an hundred times and still not also if almost sure, not act if it is so because you would probably find yourself in a bad situation.

[hgm]

I had in mind the example of a big commercial program making use of some GPL parts for small external functions (for example a video game making use of a GPLed compression library or codec). Then only this library or codec's source, and modifications, should be made available to anyone who requests it.

This is the so-called LGPL ('Lesser GPL'), especially designed for libraries. Oterwise things like gcc could never be used for compiling closed-source software, making it pretty useless.

[rvida]

You are right. I had in mind the example of a big commercial program making use of some GPL parts for small external functions (for example a video game making use of a GPLed compression library or codec). Then only this library or codec's source, and modifications, should be made available to anyone who requests it.

Although this is way OT:
That is why we have a less strict version of GPL called LGPL. Using such LGPL-ed libraries in proprietary products is not forbidden - it is even encouraged. Of course any in-house modifications to such a library needs to be merged upstream. If the maintainer(s) of the project decline to merge your patches - you are pretty much screwed (or at least you need to maintain an alternative code repository open to the public).

[hgm]

As always you did put a link without either reading anything at all of what is written in it, as you have done the other time with Hyper Threading.

You must be confusing me with someone else. I hardly ever post links other than to downloads of my own software. The only link I posted in connection with the Hyper Threading discussion was that to the MicroSoft manual page for the function to set the affinity mask of a process, for which the ChessGUI author had actually asked.

So I have no idea why you drag in Hyper Threading here. If you still disagree with me about how Hyper Threading works, then you are simply wrong. I wouldn't waste time on posting links to convince you of that.

If you want to point out that your claims about copyrights are of the same quality as those on Hyper Threading... Well, then we don't have to take these serious either! It is not good advertizement.

[Houdini]

Folks,

I hate to see Robert dragged through the mud every time and this poll is meant to suggest some constructive solutions and to express your feelings as a guide for him what to do. But first allow me to put things in a historic nutshell before you cast your vote.

LOL. This thread has become hilarious, internet forums at their best .
To add to the general hilarity, let's make a deal: if you can provide clarity about the origin of IPPOLIT, I will provide more details about the origin of Houdini.

Cherio,
Robert

Glad you enjoy the show, if it gets boring you know how to end it.

What exactly should I be wanting to end? All this is forum gibberish, quite far removed from the reality of engine development and marketing.

You have been deluded if you believe (as is obvious from your suggested "solutions") that Houdini would have been any different in appearance, code or strength if your heroes "Norman and Milos" would not have made their contribution to the Robbolito saga.
From my point of view all this is rather hilarious.

What remains is the question why you've created a thread about a perceived but pretty much non-existing ethical problem, and not about the very real LEGAL problem that Richard's recent actions have created.

Cheers,
Robert

[geots]

Folks,

I hate to see Robert dragged through the mud every time and this poll is meant to suggest some constructive solutions and to express your feelings as a guide for him what to do. But first allow me to put things in a historic nutshell before you cast your vote.

LOL. This thread has become hilarious, internet forums at their best .
To add to the general hilarity, let's make a deal: if you can provide clarity about the origin of IPPOLIT, I will provide more details about the origin of Houdini.

Cherio,
Robert

Glad you enjoy the show, if it gets boring you know how to end it.

What exactly should I be wanting to end? All this is forum gibberish, quite far removed from the reality of engine development and marketing.

You have been deluded if you believe (as is obvious from your suggested "solutions") that Houdini would have been any different in appearance, code or strength if your heroes "Norman and Milos" would not have made their contribution to the Robbolito saga.
From my point of view all this is rather hilarious.

What remains is the question why you've created a thread about a perceived but pretty much non-existing ethical problem, and not about the very real LEGAL problem that Richard's recent actions have created.

Cheers,
Robert

Not withstanding the fact that many of these people I consider my friends, this is what happens on a forum when everyone is just completely shit-out of anything to post or talk about. Just when I see a post that I think could never be equaled in the waste of bandwidth- here comes another one longer and more full of useless garbage. This whole train wreck has gotten way past the point of ridiculous.



george