Robodini

[Jeremy Bernstein]

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.

As long as complete source code is provided to users/purchasers.

Can you please tone down the size and font fun. It's distracting and annoying for most forum users. Those features are provided for exceptional needs, not as a substitute for rhetoric, and can be disabled on a per-user basis if they are abused.

jb

[Vishywins]

Can you please tone down the size and font fun. It's distracting and annoying for most forum users. Those features are provided for exceptional needs, not as a substitute for rhetoric, and can be disabled on a per-user basis if they are abused.

jb

my apologies.
still i believe it better to use large font than to write ignorant stuff like "prima".
why is such a buffoon tolerated on this forum wihtout correction ?? are there no standards of quality other than size of font ??

[Prima]

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 !!

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?

[Prima]

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.

Rhetoric. Tautology. Repeats. See answer here: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2249&p=18360#p18360

[Jeremy Bernstein]

Can you please tone down the size and font fun. It's distracting and annoying for most forum users. Those features are provided for exceptional needs, not as a substitute for rhetoric, and can be disabled on a per-user basis if they are abused.

jb

my apologies.
still i believe it better to use large font than to write ignorant stuff like "prima".
why is such a buffoon tolerated on this forum wihtout correction ?? are there no standards of quality other than size of font ??

Once again: referring to other members of the forum in an impolite, abusive fashion (e.g. "buffoon") is against the rules here. If you can't conduct a discussion, even an argument, even an argument where you are totally right on the basis of verifiable facts and someone else is totally wrong (and I vehemently don't think that's the case here, for the record), without insulting those with whom you are arguing, you will be shown the door. Last warning.

jb

[Vishywins]

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?"

[Prima]

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.

[Vishywins]

This is not allowed in the EU laws.

u believe gpl not allowed in EU ???
please provide link to facts !!

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.

u have lots of fantasy. much talk, no facts.
houndini is closed source software. reverse engineering to make competitive product is criminal activity in EU.
maybe vida took your advise before doing illegal action ???

[Prima]

This is not allowed in the EU laws.

u believe gpl not allowed in EU ???
please provide link to facts !!

Re-read my quoted statements. It's the taking of GPL and close sourcing it to make profit. NOT, "u believe gpl not allowed in EU"!!!

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.

u have lots of fantasy. much talk, no facts.

Care to elaborate on your assumed fantasies? Didn't RH take PD Ippo & Robbo/GPL-Robbo to make Houdini? Didn't he state that Houdini is original? Didn't evidence show otherwise, which is contrary to his claim of originality, AND the uproar of discussion in internet foras? Wasn't it determine that he violated his EU laws in selling Houdini and without source codes? Isn't the sole purpose of Robbodini to prove Houdini is still PD IppoLit & GPL RobboLito? Whate, EXACTLY, is the fantasy here?

houndini is closed source software. reverse engineering to make competitive product is criminal activity in EU.
maybe vida took your advise before doing illegal action ???

Taking GPL-source code and making it commercial does not mean everything's alright, especially if RH failed (and continually fails) to include his "own" modified source codes with the original GPL source. It's also obvious you haven't eve read the EU laws on this matter. Not my problem.

Clearly you want to hang on GPL, with regards to whether it can be profited from or not, which I've shown that it's not as you think it is in all cases. Yet you neglect the other terms and requirements of GPLv3. This is the same GPL you despised. You have nothing intelligent and/or educative to add. You keep going in circles and dancing around, but never discussed "the" underlying issues surrounding the IppoLit/GPL-RobboLito 0.085g3/Houdini/Robbdini controversy. Investing my time in a monkey would have been far more productive in the intellectual sense, as the monkey would learn and/or is capable of focusing on the issue being discussed.

Do me a big favor; in the future, refrain from answering my posts. Of course as I can't manually force you not to, most likely I won't respond to your nonsensical rhetoric and rants - if you answer.

[Vishywins]

This is not allowed in the EU laws.

u believe gpl not allowed in EU ???
please provide link to facts !!

Re-read my quoted statements. It's the taking of GPL and close sourcing it to make profit. NOT, "u believe gpl not allowed in EU"!!!

i re-read your statements. i see only fantasy no facts.
when i show new things that you did not know you fill more pages with empty talk.

i say gpl can be used commercially, for exemple stockfish.
you say it is only stockfish, not other engines - other engines use gpl v1 ou v2.

i then show robolit license - everyone sees it uses same gpl licence that allows commercial use. gpl v3.
you then claim there is difference in gpl in US and EU:

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.
...
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.

i asked for link to show gpl is different in europe. you said you "studied EU law in 2011" please show us!!
you just empty talk. please provide *one* fact not just your imagination of law !!