251–260 of 261 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So, not like a book, where if you have the physical copy you can generally read it So like an ebook then. We don't have a good distinction in English between a) medium-length arrangement of words and punctuation and b) book.
Document
The GPL's Termination clause allows Stockfish to terminate ChessBase's use of the license, but does anything prevent someone from forking the code and licensing it to Stockfish as an end around? It seems like it would be very difficult to enforce.
That would be a separate infringement. Once Stockfish wins their case against ChessBase, it would likely mean easier wins on any other infringement cases. The viral nature of the GPL and other copyleft licenses expressly allow this and put a healthy fear of improper OSS reuse and deployment in most rational software companies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Im amazed they found a bank who would provide a mortgage against a property that was part of a legal dispute over ownership.
How would a bank know?
I'd assume someone like that existed there as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They wouldn't since the property deed was transferred; as long as a court doesn't rule that the transfer was illegal because of forged signatures, the bank won't / shouldn't do anything - what if the accusation is baseless. If a court does rule that the transfer was fraudulent, the bank can cancel the mortgage and demand immediate repayment. Of course, once it's time for a criminal to pay up, both they and the money…
> They wouldn't since the property deed was transferred; as long as a court doesn't rule that the transfer was illegal because of forged signatures, the bank won't / shouldn't do anything - what if the accusation is baseless. The bank isn't under any obligation to give you a mortgage. From their point of view they're lending you a big wedge of cash with the property as collateral, so they should be trying to satisfy…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think so. Red Hat Linux - the software - is free under GPL. Red Hat the company charges for support, training, and documentation. ChessBase charges for the software, which means they're either not compliant with the terms of GPL, or there's some other aspect of the software they're not obligated to share. I'm particularly interested if it's the latter. But I'm just wading into this subject matter, so others c…
> ChessBase charges for the software, which means they're either not compliant with the terms of GPL, or there's some other aspect of the software they're not obligated to share. It's very clear from the story that it's the first one: they're not compliant with the GPL. At least that's what the Stockfish authors are claiming. They're pretty obviously acting in good faith and appear to be correct in their claim. Chess…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think so. Red Hat Linux - the software - is free under GPL. Red Hat the company charges for support, training, and documentation. ChessBase charges for the software, which means they're either not compliant with the terms of GPL, or there's some other aspect of the software they're not obligated to share. I'm particularly interested if it's the latter. But I'm just wading into this subject matter, so others c…
As far as I know, Red Hat does not provide compiled binaries without a (typically paid) Red Hat license.
> Thus, to enforce the consequences of the license termination, we have filed a lawsuit... We believe we have the evidence, the financial means and the determination to bring this lawsuit to a successful end. The part about financial means stood out for me. All societies should work harder to ensure that money is not an impediment to obtaining justice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I know, Red Hat does not provide compiled binaries without a (typically paid) Red Hat license.
The point is, Red Hat is not a comparison because users can build, understand, and redistribute their version of Linux for free (in accordance with GPLv2). Not so with ChessBase.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point is, Red Hat is not a comparison because users can build, understand, and redistribute their version of Linux for free (in accordance with GPLv2). Not so with ChessBase.
The point being made is that the "for free" part of that sentence doesn't actually exist in the GPL. You can modify GPL code, then charge for access if you want (which, IIUC, Red Hat does). You just have to give it to whoever you sell it to under the terms of the GPL, which means your customers could give it away for free if they so choose.
> which means your customers could give it away for free if they so choose
ChessBase is selling the software, and they aren’t getting undercut because they are not redistributing everything the customer needs to rebuild it from source. It will be interesting to find out what that is (neural net weights, or whatever) and whether the court upholds that this is not copylefted under the GPL.