Vishywins wrote:Prima wrote:Are we talking Stockfish/iPhones or are we talking Houdini in/from Europe? If we're talking Stockfish IN iPhones, I already stated that Stockfish's license permits that but that does not mean this is applicable to ALL GPL.
Here's why: The GPL that can be commercialized are primarirly GPLv3. If you'd read the entire article, you would see that earlier GPLs (GPLv1 & GPLv2) restricted both end-users and software distributors' rights - specifically in this aspects. It came with circumstances. Hence WHY version 3 of the GPL was drafted, so as to allow rights of both end-users and vendors etc. Do you know what this means with relation to GPLv1 & v2? It means it is still impossible (or problematic), as BEFORE, to bundle/distribute software that were created/distributed with GPLv1 & 2. Unless a special case of amendment has to be pursued in order to make GPLv1 &v2 fall into GPLv3 category. You CAN'T just ignore the specific details or circumstances enumerated in GPLv1 & GPLv2 and automatically treat it/them as GPLv3. Before embarking on your childish campaign, why don't you READ, comprehend, and learn to deduce things FIRST?
That said, what exactly has this got to do with RobboLito/Houdini/Robbodini? The whole purpose of Robbodini is to prove that current Houdini is still based on RobboLito - hence why it was easy for RV to RE Houdini with the aid of RobboLito source code, AND still be able to back-port UCI options in the disassembled Houdini code.
Once again, we are talking RobboLito/Houdini/Robbodini. If you want to talk Stockfish, THAT has already been answered in my previous response. Alternatively, you can create your own thread and commence on your childish bickering. Don't do that here in this thread, got it?
here the robolitto licence:
RobboLito is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published
by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License,
or (at your option) any later version.
i quote you: "why don't you READ, comprehend, and learn to deduce things FIRST?"
So RobboLito 0.085g3 is GPLv3. So what? No one has ever stated contrary, besides those attempting to trivialize what Kranium & Sentinel did with GPL RobboLito 0.085g3. BTW, it stated "at your own option" relative to assigning GPL levels. RobboLito 0.0853g3 was released as GPLv3 and not as previous GPLs
According to the Wikipedia link YOU provided, GPLv3 stipulates,
under the Terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the FSF, that one can modify codes and he/she wants and in the even it is distributed, proper citations and inclusion of one's modified (or "own work") source with original must be included. Exactly as Kranium & Sentinel stated in their GPL. If Robert Houdart kept Houdini private and NOT distribute it, then there's no breach of the Terms of the GNU stipulations. In fact in his private & undistributed Houdini(s), he doesn't even need to cite/give credit to previous works and authors etc.
If Robert Houdart wants to profit from the GPL,
as applicable ONLY in the United States proper (I don't know about other Western countries) he won't be breaking the law either. However, he still needs to give proper credits and the [his modified] source codes.
But Robert Houdart chose to (1) distribute it. And (2) WITHOUT his modified sources codes or "own work", in addition to the original PD + GPL R0.085g3 source codes Houdini started from. Additionally, (3) he LIVES & resides in Europe, NOT the U.S, at the time of Houdini distribution. This is not allowed in the EU laws.
The United States GPL/FSF terms & laws cannot apply to Robert Houdart while he lives in & operates from Europe. Nor can certain parts of the EU laws concerning GPL be applied to an individual here in the U.S proper. Your problem is; you're crisscrossing the U.S GPL laws with that of the EU. And now you're upholding/citing the very GPL you previously said
"sucks" or
"is a joke" to justify personal interests and that of Robert Houdart in selling Houdini. For consistency, how about following ALL the terms of the GPLv3 - which includes providing original and/or "own" modified source codes along with the binaries? How about giving proper credits, as oppose to the "originality" claim by Robert Houdart? By now, the "cherry-picking", double-standards, and the dishonesty of Robert Houdart should be apparent.
These are the fundamental issues of discussions in internet foras. Robbodini just showed us what most already knew, and RV is not in trouble for RE-in GPL software.