GPL discussion, sense and nonsense

[UncombedCoconut]

Nonsense: the stipulations of GPL are a piece of mud. They incite to entrapment or incitement, I don't know the right English juridical term. Big chance a judge will trash GPL as entrapment. It may go like this in a court room:

Judge - Mister X, what have you done to protect your work?
X - I released my code under GPL.

Judge - Is that all?
X - Yes, your honor.

I'm having trouble understanding your reasoning. Could you clarify by adding your opinion on another hypothetical?
The New York Times publishes an article online. A rival copies and pastes its text as a column for their next day's newspaper before press time. They encounter no obstacles to doing this, because nytimes.com neither charges for access (to current articles) nor attempts to block a browser's copy feature.
Is this legal? If not, how does this differ from your example of copying copyrighted code in violation of its GPL license?

Or, in the music industry's case: do download links which say "don't download" afford less protection than for-pay download services which say "don't redistribute"? If not, how is selling CDs to the public any different, when making digital copies of them is trivial?

By the way, if the "Rybka is a fruit derivative" allegations were true, its creation would have been perfectly legal -- just not its distribution without source code!

[hyatt]

That's the key point several have been harping on...

However, the issue of participating in tournaments is a completely different animal. Even "legal derivatives" are not allowed.

[BB+]

Although I have various problems with the GPL, I'm not sure I agree with your entrapment setup. As Tord pointed out, the GPL is a license, while copyright falls under a different heading. For better or worse, courts have taken "source code" to be like books, so your scenario could be posed as: "Judge: You did nothing to prevent anyone from copying and redistributing the book you published? X - Well, I did claim copyright on it, and then brought this lawsuit against them..." While I don't like many of the GPL conditions (in fact, I was actually "entrapped" by using some GPL code in a project I had -- I ended up rewriting the relevant parts of the libs I needed), OTOH I can't dispute the fact that the copyright holder can license it as they see fit (unless, as you say, the conditions border on the maniacal).

However, the issue of participating in tournaments is a completely different animal. Even "legal derivatives" are not allowed.

I agree with this completely, which I why I tend to treat the GPL discussion as rather tangential.

I think this is the closest to an actual lawsuit verdict with the GPL to date: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news ... ermany.ars

[Rebel]

I think this is the closest to an actual lawsuit verdict with the GPL to date: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news ... ermany.ars

Actually quite simple (just the Wiki) I found a couple of verdicts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl-violations.org

Fortinet
In 2005, the gpl-violations.org project uncovered evidence that Fortinet had used GPL code in its products against the terms of the license, and used cryptographic tools to conceal the violation. The violation was alleged to have occurred in the FortiOS system, which the gpl-violations.org project said contained elements of the Linux kernel. In response, a Munich court granted a temporary injunction against the company, preventing it from selling products until they were in compliance with the necessary license terms [3]; Fortinet was forced to make their FortiOS available free in compliance with GPL licensing [4].

[edit] D-Link
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 Kernel.[5] The judgement [6][7] finally provided the on-record, legal precedent that the GPL is valid and that it will stand up in German courts.

-------

So my way of reasoning won't hold in court. Still I have a big problem with the concept. Words like open source and free but copyrighted after all. And then there is the matter of temptation. Perhaps some of you know what the Lord said about that in his prayer. Do not. Else, concept for trouble.

Ed

[Sean Evans]

That's the key point several have been harping on...

However, the issue of participating in tournaments is a completely different animal. Even "legal derivatives" are not allowed.

Perhaps, in GPL theory; however, the derivative Rybka is playing at the WCCC, which confirms that theory is trumped by reality.

Cordially,

Sean

[Andrew]

Alright, I am in the process of changing my mind, not there yet, but I now find it more likely that Rybka started its life as Fruit thanks to the contributions of Zach and BB. Having said that I am interested to have a discussion about the sense and nonsense of GPL.

Sense: I sympathize with the sentiment to share in order to make progress, usually the more people, the more progress as everybody has their own set of unique idea's.

Nonsense: the stipulations of GPL are a piece of mud. They incite to entrapment or incitement, I don't know the right English juridical term. Big chance a judge will trash GPL as entrapment. It may go like this in a court room:

Judge - Mister X, what have you done to protect your work?
X - I released my code under GPL.

Judge - Is that all?
X - Yes, your honor.

Judge - do you also leave your car, house unlocked?
X - No, your honor.

Judge - Why then your code?
X - I don't know sir.

Judge - If you leave your car unlocked and it's stolen because of that do you think the assurance company will pay?
X - no sir.

Judge - I will tell you my verdict. Mister X, you are behaving like a bank that stores all its money on the street, puts a sign on it with the text: forbidden to steal and then you come into my court room to complain that all is stolen. That is entrapment Mister X. You have an obligation to protect. Now get out my court room as soon as possible at your own chosen speed.

---

I have looked at the internet for GPL lawsuits and found no case of a verdict, only settlements. Perhaps I should look deeper.

Remains the issue of moral. And actually I find the concept of Reverse Engineering (RE) and then calling it your own a lot more corrupt then taking something that is said free (but hey!, don't use it as your own) and use it as a base to make something of your own by tons of changes, even fundamental ones (mail-box to bit-board).

I think this Rybka=Fruit issue got too much attention. Reason: sloppy GPL stipulations.

I can imagine that people with a scientific / university background will differ as they are raised in the opinion and conviction that everything should be free and should be shared for progress reasons but then PLEASE don't add such silly stipulations as an obligation to release the source code of something that is far beyond the original work.

Ed

Hi Ed,

As a disclaimer, I'm a graduate student and I've contributed to GPL code.

I think your hypothetical situation is way off the mark. If I leave my car unlocked, or my house unlocked, it is still a crime to steal it, or enter it. I have no obligation to protect, there is, however, and obligation for YOU to follow the law. If I leave $10,000 in the front seat of my car and leave the doors unlocked in my driveway, it is illegal for you to take the money, despite the fact that I'm an idiot. Whether or not an insurance company will insure me is a completely different matter.

Moving beyond your hypothetical example, as a software developer I want to make the source code available under the GPL for two reasons 1.) I want the user to be able to modify my software as they see fit, however, if they are going to widely distribute those modifications, I want to see what they changed so I can make my software better too. If they want to sell it, fine, I don't care, but when I buy it, I want access to the code as well, so I can change their software, and add my own tweaks 2.) I want to share the ideas found in my code.

If you're a developer and don't want either of those two things, then GPL shouldn't be used.

I'd say there is close to zero chance that a judge in the United States throws out the GPL. Software licenses, including commercial ones, exist to protect the content creators. Settlements happen because the infringing side knows they are infringing and they don't want to incur additional court costs on top of whatever the suit stipulates.

There are legal protections against reverse engineering. They are called patents. The catch is, you have to make your techniques publicly available. There is also DRM, however, once you go down this route, you may find that you're actually restricting the rights of the end users rather than the "bad guys" trying to infringe on your intellectual property.

[Andrew]

So my way of reasoning won't hold in court. Still I have a big problem with the concept. Words like open source and free but copyrighted after all. And then there is the matter of temptation. Perhaps some of you know what the Lord said about that in his prayer. Do not. Else, concept for trouble.

Ed

When it comes to the GPL, free means freedom to modify the code. "Free as in freedom, not as in beer." The matter of temptation is a non-issue. Just because an attractive girl gets too drunk at the bar, doesn't mean it's her fault when she is assaulted.

[BTO7]

A good link i seen in another thread somewhere but can't remember...http://www.chillingeffects.org/reverse/faq.cgi

Regards
BT

[Chris Whittington]

this copying appears to go beyond what is (or has been) acceptable in the field of computer chess/games [and I strongly feel that this is the proper standard to use for "originality", as opposed to a "legalistic" one, where perhaps only "code" is considered], and I personally find the attempts to dismiss this all as happenstance (or "unimportant") to be a bit outré. That being said, there is also a tendency to exaggerate the Rybka/Fruit connection in some other circles. [And by now, I think Rybka 4 has almost zero connection to the Fruit origins].

Alright, I am in the process of changing my mind, not there yet, but I now find it more likely that Rybka started its life as Fruit thanks to the contributions of Zach and BB. Having said that I am interested to have a discussion about the sense and nonsense of GPL.

Sense: I sympathize with the sentiment to share in order to make progress, usually the more people, the more progress as everybody has their own set of unique idea's.

Nonsense: the stipulations of GPL are a piece of mud. They incite to entrapment or incitement, I don't know the right English juridical term. Big chance a judge will trash GPL as entrapment. It may go like this in a court room:

Judge - Mister X, what have you done to protect your work?
X - I released my code under GPL.

Judge - Is that all?
X - Yes, your honor.

Judge - do you also leave your car, house unlocked?
X - No, your honor.

Judge - Why then your code?
X - I don't know sir.

Judge - If you leave your car unlocked and it's stolen because of that do you think the assurance company will pay?
X - no sir.

Judge - I will tell you my verdict. Mister X, you are behaving like a bank that stores all its money on the street, puts a sign on it with the text: forbidden to steal and then you come into my court room to complain that all is stolen. That is entrapment Mister X. You have an obligation to protect. Now get out my court room as soon as possible at your own chosen speed.

---

I have looked at the internet for GPL lawsuits and found no case of a verdict, only settlements. Perhaps I should look deeper.

Remains the issue of moral. And actually I find the concept of Reverse Engineering (RE) and then calling it your own a lot more corrupt then taking something that is said free (but hey!, don't use it as your own) and use it as a base to make something of your own by tons of changes, even fundamental ones (mail-box to bit-board).

I think this Rybka=Fruit issue got too much attention. Reason: sloppy GPL stipulations.

I can imagine that people with a scientific / university background will differ as they are raised in the opinion and conviction that everything should be free and should be shared for progress reasons but then PLEASE don't add such silly stipulations as an obligation to release the source code of something that is far beyond the original work.

Ed

The key issue is copyright infringement, because, if there is no infringement of copyright, the GPL doesn't apply at all.

The essential part of the GNU licence (with some not relevent bits deleted by me) ....

0. Definitions.
“This License” refers to version 3 of the GNU General Public License.

“The Program” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License.

To “modify” a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an exact copy. The resulting work is called a “modified version” of the earlier work or a work “based on” the earlier work.

First you have to establish a copyright infringement. It is not at all clear that if a program is a total re-write of the original, changed data structure, all code written by the 'new' author, that there's any infringement at all.

One can argue the toss about semantic or functional equivalence, but these two won't apply either if new ideas are added, old ideas are junked, modules are included that are either self-written, or come from other sources. I guess I am arguing that by the time it has all been mixed up, ideas from Fruit, ideas from Crafty, ideas of own programmer, all module implentations done by own programmer - where's the copyright infringement? Hence where's the GNU infringement?

[hyatt]

A matter of semantics. One can compare two books, or two chapters, or two paragraphs to determine if one is a copy of the other. It doesn't matter what else was done in addition to copying, copying anything, by itself, is called "plagiarism" in the friendliest term applicable. If someone rips parts of Crafty, Fruit, etc, and adds to those other parts that he writes himself, there is _still_ a copyright infringement problem, because you can't copy code. Note that looking at a single line is hardly useful, as many books have the sentence "Ouch, that hurt!" but wrap that in enough context and copyright violation becomes apparent.

There are several different issues being discussed as if they are one in the same.

1. copyright. Whomever writes the code, by default, holds the copyright on it. He can voluntarily give up that right if he wants. Or if not, it remains his.

2. GPL. An addendum to copyright that simply says "you may copy, use, and/or modify this code. But if you do, and you distribute it to anyone (whether for sale or for free is irrelevant) you must distribute the modified source code in the same package.

3. Tournaments. They can make up whatever rule they choose. We have all pretty well agreed on the derivative issue, although certainly the Fruit/Rybka issue will give some pause to think about this further. Whether ip* and friends will always be excluded or not is unknown. Certainly no more than one of them can ever play in the same tournament due to the existing derivative rule. And if we see convincing evidence that suggests that ip* was derived from Rybka, they all ip* and friends would be excluded. Doesn't address the fruit/rybka issue, but then that is something that needs more data. Today, I do not believe many would vote to accept Rybka 1 in any chess tournament. But we are now up to Rybka 4. How much, if any, of the original fruit code is left? Unknown at the moment. Of all the issues around, IMHO this is the most difficult one to deal with. You can err on the side of logic, based on normal software development practices, and assume that since R2 was released 1 year after R1, that R2 was not a "ground-up rewrite" but reused lots of code from R1. And by applying that recursively, one could reasonably conclude that R4 probably has some of that code still present. Certainly there is code in the Current version of Crafty that was present 15 years ago when it was first released. That's a far longer lifetime than Rybka, and yet significant chunks of code have survived all the changes to the present date. But then on the other hand, older versions have been allowed to compete, so it would be difficult to suddenly say "no mas".

I don't quite get all the twisted interpretations of the GPL. My simple explanation above is what the GPL is all about. Yes it requires a lot of legalese to survive court challenges. But it is really about fairness. To let someone make their code available to others, yet preserving the right to see any changes other might make, if the changed versions are distributed. If the changes are kept private, then nothing has to be released at all. Seems like a rational way to promote open software development as opposed to what happens in commercial software development where everything is top-secret, classified, hidden by double-secret encryption, and by intentional obfuscation of information to hide as much internal "trade-secret information" as is possible.

I grew up in the days of "open computer chess development." Many of us exchanged source code all the time. Starting in the days of Coko (Kozdrowicki and I communicated a lot in the early 70's and the last version I had was Coko IV) and then on to Slate (not many wanted to look at compass assembly language but he made it available) and of course including Cray Blitz and Crafty, not to mention hundreds of other programs available today. We were trying to push the field forward, not push our own self-interests forward. I actually think we did pretty well at this approach, in spite of commercial computer chess programming practices.