Strelka and source code experts

[Michael Sherwin]

derrivitive does not mean copy. If Vasik used Fruit as a guide to create Rybka then Rybka is a derivitive of Fabiens work. Period.

This is incorrect.
If this were true then you must consider that Fruit was a derivative of something else and that was a derivative of something before it ... you go back ... until something was a derivative of product that wasn't under the GPL and hence you must conclude that all those GPLd versions are illegal and only the 'original' (very first) license is valid -- in essence you are going for the "all your code belongs to us" argument.
You cannot extend the term "derivative work" without bounds, for it becomes completely meaningless.

Regards.

Anyone can use alpha-beta, it is not covered under any license! You can not take Fruit as a whole and rewrite it to work identical and then start adding things to it. It is still a modified Fruit. A pure derivitive of Fruit. The GPL that is agreed to is therefore binding according to you.

If a person recieves a GPL licensed product, it comes with the GPL. That person is allowed to use the product anyway they like as long as it does not involve redistribution without agreeing to the license. Once you distribute a product that is based on this work then you agree to its terms. Once you agree to its terms then you are bound by the GPL and if you do not comply then you loose the rights that it states. You loose the right to have had the GPL source in the first place. It is very tricky. Is it binding?

[hristo]

Then the license should not have used the word 'derived'. And clause 5) is invalid when it says that if you distribute a work that has been derived from a GPL source it must be under the GPL. If 'you agree to something' then you are bound by the agreement and not by copyright law. The GPL implies that it is a contract that a person agrees to if a derived work is distributed. If this is a binding contract then it covers more than copyright law. It is a contract as well.

Agreed, the GPL is binding and its contract that applies when you distribute your own works. (I tried to make this clear in the previous post)
The 'contract' aspect of the GPL doesn't cover 'ideas', etc. either.

For something to be "derivative work" one must show a lot more than just "the original template that was used", as is the case with Rybka. Claiming that Rybka is a derivative of Fruit, simply because the author used Fruit's source code as a starting point is not sufficient.

Presumably many of the algorithms ('ideas') in Fruit are not subject to the GPL, such as alpha-beta, even though the particular implementation is. In this case if the author implemented the alpha-beta code on his own he is in no way bound by the GPL, even though that code is present in the GPLd Fruit. If you follow this, you will see that there are actually very few things in Fruit that can lead to something being considered as derivative work. In all probability only %10 of Fruit can lead something else to be considered a "derivative work". If those %10 are taken out and then replaced by something different, and here I don't mean just replacing the variable names, then the resulting product is not under the GPL, even if it employs "alpha-beta" and all other non-copyrigtable items from Fruit.

The contract may not stand up in court though.

This partly depends on what is considered a derivative work.

Regards.

[Michael Sherwin]

Then the license should not have used the word 'derived'. And clause 5) is invalid when it says that if you distribute a work that has been derived from a GPL source it must be under the GPL. If 'you agree to something' then you are bound by the agreement and not by copyright law. The GPL implies that it is a contract that a person agrees to if a derived work is distributed. If this is a binding contract then it covers more than copyright law. It is a contract as well.

Agreed, the GPL is binding and its contract that applies when you distribute your own works. (I tried to make this clear in the previous post)
The 'contract' aspect of the GPL doesn't cover 'ideas', etc. either.

For something to be "derivative work" one must show a lot more than just "the original template that was used", as is the case with Rybka. Claiming that Rybka is a derivative of Fruit, simply because the author used Fruit's source code as a starting point is not sufficient.

Presumably many of the algorithms ('ideas') in Fruit are not subject to the GPL, such as alpha-beta, even though the particular implementation is. In this case if the author implemented the alpha-beta code on his own he is in no way bound by the GPL, even though that code is present in the GPLd Fruit. If you follow this, you will see that there are actually very few things in Fruit that can lead to something being considered as derivative work. In all probability only %10 of Fruit can lead something else to be considered a "derivative work". If those %10 are taken out and then replaced by something different, and here I don't mean just replacing the variable names, then the resulting product is not under the GPL, even if it employs "alpha-beta" and all other non-copyrigtable items from Fruit.

The contract may not stand up in court though.

This partly depends on what is considered a derivative work.

Regards.

agreed!

[Tord Romstad]

I believe the binding exists, however I don't know if this GPL license has been fully tested in the court of law.

At least in the United States and in Germany, it has. See this Wikipedia page, for instance.

Tord

[hristo]

derrivitive does not mean copy. If Vasik used Fruit as a guide to create Rybka then Rybka is a derivitive of Fabiens work. Period.

This is incorrect.
If this were true then you must consider that Fruit was a derivative of something else and that was a derivative of something before it ... you go back ... until something was a derivative of product that wasn't under the GPL and hence you must conclude that all those GPLd versions are illegal and only the 'original' (very first) license is valid -- in essence you are going for the "all your code belongs to us" argument.
You cannot extend the term "derivative work" without bounds, for it becomes completely meaningless.

Regards.

Anyone can use alpha-beta, it is not covered under any license! You can not take Fruit as a whole and rewrite it to work identical and then start adding things to it. It is still a modified Fruit. A pure derivitive of Fruit. The GPL that is agreed to is therefore binding according to you.

If a person recieves a GPL licensed product, it comes with the GPL. That person is allowed to use the product anyway they like as long as it does not involve redistribution without agreeing to the license. Once you distribute a product that is based on this work then you agree to its terms. Once you agree to its terms then you are bound by the GPL and if you do not comply then you loose the rights that it states. You loose the right to have had the GPL source in the first place. It is very tricky. Is it binding?

It is binding.
You can base your work on Fruit, but so long as you have satisfied the copyright clause and the "derivative" clause of the license you are no longer bound by the GPL.

There is a break point where you are no longer bound by the license. Consider this as a starting point:
Fruit is a chess program and you study its source code. You write a chess program. Is your program bound by the GPL simply because it does the same thing as Fruit? (Obviously not) Alternatively, you open one of the Fruit's source files, go to the very first line and press the "Return" key, then are you bound by the GPL? (obviously yes)

So, somewhere in between there we have a break point, but claiming that something is a derivative work simply because the author had access to the source code and used it in some fashion is not convincing.

Regards.

[hristo]

I believe the binding exists, however I don't know if this GPL license has been fully tested in the court of law.

At least in the United States and in Germany, it has. See this Wikipedia page, for instance.

You mean this:

This is ultimately a question not of the GPL per se, but of how copyright law defines derivative works. In Galoob v. Nintendo the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals defined a derivative work as having "'form' or permanence" and noted that "the infringing work must incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work in some form," but there have been no clear court decisions to resolve this particular conflict.
Since there is no record of anyone circumventing the GPL by dynamic linking and contesting when threatened with lawsuits by the copyright holder, the restriction appears de facto enforceable even if not yet proven de jure.

or this:

On September 6, 2006, the gpl-violations.org project prevailed in court litigation against D-Link Germany GmbH regarding D-Link's alleged inappropriate and copyright infringing use of parts of the Linux Operating System Kernel.[24] The judgment finally provided the on-record, legal precedent that the GPL is valid and legally binding, and that it will stand up in German court.

I do believe that the GPL will be fine in court. However, the court appearances have been very few and have been somewhat unsatisfying.

There are many questions about the GPL that haven't been answered yet, in the court of law and in this sense it hasn't been fully tested.

Regards.