Robodini

[Vishywins]

Self-correction/EDIT:

He did make a statement to the tune that "Talkchess is a goldmine of evidence relative to RE Houdini..." or something to that effect. He forgets that that SAME forum is also a goldmine against him for continually denying that Houdini is original.

I meant to say:

He forgets that that SAME forum is also a goldmine against him for continually denying that Houdini contains ANY foreign codes and emphasizing Houdini's originality.

again childish logic and primitive notions of law...

gpl is a joke... in the best case houdard will have to publish the houdini 1.0 sources to compy with gpl... what's the use of that ????

on the other hand vida broke EU business law and could really suffer. the lawyer julien marcel wrote on talkchess: "In the other hand, Richard Vida most probably broke criminal laws, maybe business law if his legal opponent can prove he is a competitor in the economical meaning of the word, and probably contract law if he broke Houdini's license (this I can't be sure, because I don't own Houdini myself)."

houdard can claim 100 000 dollar or more just to set an exemple...

[Prima]

Self-correction/EDIT:

He did make a statement to the tune that "Talkchess is a goldmine of evidence relative to RE Houdini..." or something to that effect. He forgets that that SAME forum is also a goldmine against him for continually denying that Houdini is original.

I meant to say:

He forgets that that SAME forum is also a goldmine against him for continually denying that Houdini contains ANY foreign codes and emphasizing Houdini's originality.

again childish logic and primitive notions of law...

An original code means writing your own code from scratch, excluding mundane and/or basic ubiquitous functions. If you agree with this definition of an original engine, then my question to you is;
did Robert Houdart claim Houdini is original? the answer would be "yes". If not, please show the world such thread(s) were he said otherwise.
The next simple question is; since Houdini is proven to start from a [3200+ ELO] PD source code - meaning, NOT written by Robert Houdart - how can Houdini be considered "original" as claim by its author?
The next question focuses on the similarities between Houdini and RobboLito 0.085g3. By now, it should make things pretty clear to the defending lawyer/or judge to discern a pattern of Robert Houdart: the lies & dishonesty involved here.

There are other questions and things to show but for now, how is this childish logic? or primitive notion of the law, other than to spout your anger when things don't go your way?

gpl is a joke... in the best case houdard will have to publish the houdini 1.0 sources to compy with gpl... what's the use of that ????

It's people with such attitude with no regards for the license/law that ARE the fundamental problems of these code-theft & dishonesty we see plaguing computer chess communities. Obviously people who disregard GPL/Laws are the very ones who have no problem breaking the law. And then lying about it. Sounds familiar? GPL, irrespective of its various levels, besides certain level of GPL, is there for a reason: to deter exactly these kinds of dishonesty and of course, protect copyright/property(ies). For someone who assumes the prerogatives of the law, enough to state that GPL is a joke, is self-contradictory, if not bewildering. But just because YOU say so, doesn't make GPL a joke. How about letting the law enforcement/court deal decide if GPL is a joke or not?
BTW, if the source code of Houdini 1.0 is useless, WHY hasn't Robert Houdart refused to comply with the GPL requirements of Robbolito 0.085g3 up till now, eh? I wonder why...

on the other hand vida broke EU business law and could really suffer. the lawyer julien marcel wrote on talkchess: "In the other hand, Richard Vida most probably broke criminal laws, maybe business law if his legal opponent can prove he is a competitor in the economical meaning of the word, and probably contract law if he broke Houdini's license (this I can't be sure, because I don't own Houdini myself)."

Julien Marcel stated he was/is NOT a lawyer. Just a law-teacher and a jurist. Big difference. So this false assertion has to be your words.

From Julien MARCEL:

(BTW, I'm not a lawyer, I'm a jurist and a law teacher.)

from this thread: http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 52&t=47073

But in those same threads, it was postulated that RV might not end up doing anything wrong, as long as the source code was not released. This is debatable. Still, the fact of the matter is Robert Houdart is NOT guiltless: he based Houdini on the GPL R0.085g3. Lied about it. Claimed originality (another lie), considering Houdini is also based on Public Domain. Made it close source/commercial, including Houdini's GPL'ed code-base parts. He broke a GPL product. Robert Houdart broke EU laws.

BTW, since Robert Houdart used GPL codes in the non-commercial Houdini, it is likely that some of these codes have trickled into the illegal commercial Houdini versions. And since we don't know for sure, MY guess is the court would demand him to publish ALL his Houdini codes to comply with the GPL that Houdini is also based on, unless he can prove the the commercials are free of the GPL Robbolito 0.085g3.

See here for why Robert Houdart needs to publish his codes (also for those trivializing what Kranium & Sentinel did in R0.085g3).
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 33&t=47073
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 53&t=47073

Also here:
Julien MARCEL:

"No, it's not smoke. The code added by Norman is GPLed. What was originally public domain is still public domain. So you can use the public domain part as you wish, but for Norman's adding you must comply with the GPL part. "

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 71&t=47073

And here:

"No, Norman only GPLed his addition to the code. If you don't want his addition, start from a previous branch that didn't have his additions."

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 76&t=47073

There are more. Are you starting to get the picture?

houdard can claim 100 000 dollar or more just to set an exemple...

And I will like to be the sole ruler of the world. Not going to happen, however. Besides, I really want see Robert Houdart go to court - if he's truly that deluded ( which I tend to believe) given all his lies, disregard for the GPL laws, and double-standard, etc. He will not go un-dented by his past actions.

Other than your deliberate insults, false assertions & selective quotes, and showing how testy you can get in your 1st two posts, albeit blindly, is there anything constructive you can add? Might help if you get your facts straight and weigh all options for both sides before speaking. My 2 cents.

[Vishywins]

wow you are very excited. did houdard steal your wife?

you do not understand that even if gpl was violated it would be good enough to publish the houndini 1.0 sources. maybe houdard could publish the robbolito sources - would be good joke !!
gpl sucks - you can even make money by selling stockfish on iPhone if you want. no need to change anything just compile and sell. 100% legal.

BIG mistake of calling mr julien a lawyer. mr vida will be happy to hear he only is a law teacher.

next time please write shorter text, you have not many interesting things to say.

[velmarin]

wow you are very excited. did houdard steal your wife?

you do not understand that even if gpl was violated it would be good enough to publish the houndini 1.0 sources. maybe houdard could publish the robbolito sources - would be good joke !!
gpl sucks - you can even make money by selling stockfish on iPhone if you want. no need to change anything just compile and sell. 100% legal.

BIG mistake of calling mr julien a lawyer. mr vida will be happy to hear he only is a law teacher.

next time please write shorter text, you have not many interesting things to say.

Internal records for just one day, you have a lot to say.

[Prima]

you do not understand that even if gpl was violated it would be good enough to publish the houndini 1.0 sources.

Re-read my answer on this. Robert Houdart may be required to publish only the Houdini 1.03 codes. Or he may be required to publish ALL Houdini (both non-commercial & commercial) codes. That depends on the developing circumstances during the case. Until then, you're NOT clairvoyant nor cognizant relative to EU Laws to know what Robert Houdart ought to do.

gpl sucks

Tautology. With nothing intelligent to vindicate this, other than the fact you don't like GPL.

- you can even make money by selling stockfish on iPhone if you want. no need to change anything just compile and sell. 100% legal.

The license of Stockfish allows this. Not all GPL engines allow this. Did YOU read & comprehend the license of Stockfish, besides just noting that Stockfish can be sold on the iPhone platform? Do YOU understand the intricacies involved? Don't think so. You just know that Stockfish is profitable on iPhone and you ignorantly apply it to ALL GPL engines.

BIG mistake of calling mr julien a lawyer. mr vida will be happy to hear he only is a law teacher.

Not just a BIG mistake, but indicative that folks like you who don't read before running the mouth usually bear FALSE facts.
By the way, Richard Vida may not be in so much trouble considering that Houdini origins is GPL (plus its PD) codes. So RV may not be in trouble for RE a GPL-based code. I did actually read the EU laws, back in 2011, and to the best of my understanding, EU Laws does not penalize a RE-ing of GPL code. So that RH is not protected just because he close-sourced a PD+GPL codes and commercialized it - which in itself is against EU laws. But I'll rather wait for the EU court on this.

next time please write shorter text, you have not many interesting things to say.

Don't like the evidences or citations presented exposing your fictitious posts?...you can start by posting facts. It wasn't fun for me either to dig up each of those threads. But your mouth had to be shut. Don't dabble in matters of GPL/copyrights/laws, much less the EU ones, as you're not even versed in that either.

You've wasted my time, with no nothing intelligent to contribute, or a "different" perspective that can be learned from, other than "GPL sucks", or "Robert Houdart did nothing wrong with the GPL" and/or "RV is in trouble". Goodbye.

[Vishywins]

- you can even make money by selling stockfish on iPhone if you want. no need to change anything just compile and sell. 100% legal.

The license of Stockfish allows this. Not all GPL engines allow this. Did YOU read & comprehend the license of Stockfish, besides just noting that Stockfish can be sold on the iPhone platform? Do YOU understand the intricacies involved? Don't think so. You just know that Stockfish is profitable on iPhone and you ignorantly apply it to ALL GPL engines.

wow you really are one ignorant boss.

ALL gpl code can be used commercially if you publish the changes in the source code. if you don't change the source (just compile) and sell that is ALWAYS 100% legal. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License

turns out that you know nothing about GPL but make a lot of noise.
your answers show the intelligence level and boasting of an 8-year old.

[Prima]

- you can even make money by selling stockfish on iPhone if you want. no need to change anything just compile and sell. 100% legal.

The license of Stockfish allows this. Not all GPL engines allow this. Did YOU read & comprehend the license of Stockfish, besides just noting that Stockfish can be sold on the iPhone platform? Do YOU understand the intricacies involved? Don't think so. You just know that Stockfish is profitable on iPhone and you ignorantly apply it to ALL GPL engines.

wow you really are one ignorant boss.

ALL gpl code can be used commercially if you publish the changes in the source code. if you don't change the source (just compile) and sell that is ALWAYS 100% legal. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License

Seriously, are you confused or do you suffer from some form of short-term memory damage? I clearly said that just because Stockfish can be "bundle" in products does not mean this applies to ALL types or forms of GPL. I'm not going to spell out what is said in the FSF/GPL link for you. Keep making a public jest of yourself, as it's clear you don't know the [explicit & implicit] details of the various GPLs you're citing via that link.

Now IN the U.S, one can also commercially use GPL3 as long as the modified parts (or "own work"), along with the original GPL3 source(s) are included in distribution. But we're talking "Houdini and Europe (the EU Laws)". After all, your contention is to vindicate Robert Houdart/Houdini's PD+GPL distribution - who lived/lives in Europe at the time of Houdini distribution. My discussion has always been that RH can't do what he did with the sales of Houdini while living IN Europe. Their laws on GPL & commerce etc. differ quite a bit from that of the U.S's. Even if we were to apply the U.S version of FSF/GPL laws to Robert Houdart, certain FSF/GPL mandates of the U.S proper prevents Robert Houdart from doing what he's doing WITHOUT providing source codes, containing his modifications and the GPL'ed version inclusively. Re-read ALL that is being said in the FSF/GPL link YOU provided. Also read up on "bundling" GPL products in other products here in the U.S (Copyleft, Terms and conditions GPL1, GPL2, GPL3, Use of License Software) etc. Then read the EU's law relative to what is being discuss at hand, and then come back.

turns out that you know nothing about GPL but make a lot of noise.
your answers show the intelligence level and boasting of an 8-year old.

I could care less for your opinion(s). It's pretty clear your anger & emotion gets the best of you and you lack objectivity. So what's to be missed exactly? Stop embarrassing yourself (and I'm being charitable here) when pulling up the FSF/GPL articles, supposing to prove me wrong, and in the process discredit yourself instead.

[Jeremy Bernstein]

your answers show the intelligence level and boasting of an 8-year old.

Consider yourself warned. This level of discourse is against the rules of OpenChess (it is, in fact, more appropriate to the intelligence level of, well, an 8-year old) and won't be tolerated indefinitely. Keep the signal to noise level high, please.

Jeremy

[Vishywins]

Seriously, are you confused or do you suffer from some form of short-term memory damage? I clearly said that just because Stockfish can be "bundle" in products does not mean this applies to ALL types or forms of GPL. I'm not going to spell out what is said in the FSF/GPL link for you. Keep making a public jest of yourself, as it's clear you don't know the [explicit & implicit] details of the various GPLs you're citing via that link.

i will spell out what is in the wikipedia link :

The terms and conditions of the GPL must be made available to anybody receiving a copy of the work that has a GPL applied to it ("the licensee"). Any licensee who adheres to the terms and conditions is given permission to modify the work, as well as to copy and redistribute the work or any derivative version. The licensee is allowed to charge a fee for this service, or do this free of charge. This latter point distinguishes the GPL from software licenses that prohibit commercial redistribution. The FSF argues that free software should not place restrictions on commercial use,[34] and the GPL explicitly states that GPL works may be sold at any price.

you make so much noise without knowing anything about gpl ???

as you said, keep making a public jest of yourself !!

[Vishywins]

Seriously, are you confused or do you suffer from some form of short-term memory damage? I clearly said that just because Stockfish can be "bundle" in products does not mean this applies to ALL types or forms of GPL. I'm not going to spell out what is said in the FSF/GPL link for you. Keep making a public jest of yourself, as it's clear you don't know the [explicit & implicit] details of the various GPLs you're citing via that link.

quote from the wikipedia link:

Software under the GPL may be run for all purposes, including commercial purposes and even as a tool for creating proprietary software, for example when using GPL-licensed compilers.[35] Users or companies who distribute GPL-licensed works (e.g. software), may charge a fee for copies or give them free of charge. This distinguishes the GPL from shareware software licenses that allow copying for personal use but prohibit commercial distribution, or proprietary licenses where copying is prohibited by copyright law. The FSF argues that freedom-respecting free software should also not restrict commercial use and distribution (including redistribution)[34]: the GPL explicitly states that GPL works may be sold at any price.

this means that ALL gpl code can be used commercially.
you make so much noise but are completely ignorant about gpl.