Dave a écrit :
Pascal wrote:

english is not my mother tongue, contrary of you, so sorry for my poor
grammar and vocabulary.

I understand English is not your mother tongue, but it is very good. It
is certainly better than my French, which I last studied 30+ years ago.

Hence I believe you can understand when I ask if you wrote the following
line:

:::splash::add "Also look at the online tutorial
http://scid.sourceforge.net/tutorial/ will always have the very latest "


No I must confess I did not wrote this stuff and any other thing (at
your will) in current Scid's code : it appears you don't understand my
poor english, so I will try to repeat in other words : you deserve *all*
fame for Scid ! You made all what has some value (and even what has
none, if you want) in current Scid's evolution, and I am not able (and
certainly no will) to prove anything, so *everything* is yours ! All
what you want !

Pascal

Guy Macon wrote:
David Kirkby wrote:

Copying GPL'ed code is fine I've no problems with that.

It is against common decency to not acknowledge it, but I
can accept that is not a requirement of the GPL.

In other words, you accept the fact that (direct quote from
the GPL) "requiring...author attributions" is specifically
listed as an additional optional term that not required by
the GPL. See [ http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html ]
section 7. Good!

Note that he ALSO said that not acknowledging your sources is the sort
of thing that only angle-shooting scum will do.

Ethics is the art of knowing the difference between what you *can* do
and what you *should* do.


BUT when Pascal specifically says he wrote code, when it
was written by me, then that must come under the definition
of plagiarism, which is passing off someone elses ideas or
work as your own.

In other words, you *refuse* to accept the fact that (again
a direct quote from the GPL) "prohibiting misrepresentation
of the origin of that material" is specifically listed as
an additional optional term that not required by the GPL.
See [ http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html ] section 7.

Perhaps he feels that there are higher authorities than the GPL.

RMS was (and is) a clever hacker - but there are other guideposts to
civilized behavior.

--
Kenneth Sloan
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://www.cis.uab.edu/sloan/

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit


Kenneth Sloan wrote:

Perhaps he feels that there are higher authorities than the GPL.

RMS was (and is) a clever hacker - but there are other guideposts to
civilized behavior.

Point well taken. And one of the reasons why so many folks
disagree with the GPL position on attribution.

I think that part of the problem is the fact that so many people
who totally disagree with the no-owner free-software underpinnings
of the GPL release software under GPL, and then flame those who do
agree with Stallman's philosophy and behave accordingly. If you
really do believe that you own something, someone who acts as if
you don't tends to anger you, even if you did agree to a license
that says that you don't own it. Even if the work is released to
the public domain, it's still annoying seeing someone come along
and claim that they wrote it when they clearly didn't.

Which reminds me; have you read my new work _ Philosophiæ Naturalis
Principia Mathematica: Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy_?
It consists of three books: _De Motu Corporum: On the motion of bodies_
Volumes I and II, and _De Mundi Systemate: On the system of the world_.
In it I explain how I invented calculus. Some little-known religious
fanatic going by the name Isaac Newton stole all of my best ideas...

(Note to the humor impaired: think first, flame later; not everything
posted to Usenet is serious.)

--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Guy Macon wrote:

If you
really do believe that you own something, someone who acts as if
you don't tends to anger you, even if you did agree to a license
that says that you don't own it. Even if the work is released to
the public domain, it's still annoying seeing someone come along
and claim that they wrote it when they clearly didn't.

Which is how I feel. Couple that with a web page written about me,
calling me a liar etc:

http://prolinux.free.fr/scid/FAQ.html#fork_insane

and it does rather irritate me.

I've no idea how many people believe my version of events, and how many
believe Pascals - it would be nice to know.

BTW, it is possible under some circumstances to take over inactive
projects on Sourceforge.

http://sourceforge.net/docs/D01/en/#takeover

I don't know where that fits in with your earlier statement that it is
illegal for Pascal to use the name Scid. The problem with the term
'illegal' is that it depends on which country you are in.

Richard wrote:
Personally, playing in the U1600 sections of tournaments, I'd like
to see statistics on what the most common responses by players rated
1400-1600 are to certain moves in the openings I play. That will
tell me what I really need to prepare for, regardless of how strong
it is.

My guess is that U1600 players play much more randomly than grand-
masters. For example, you can be almost certain that a GM would play
2.d4 after 1.e4 e6. A much weaker player, on the other hand, would be
much more likely to try something like 2.Nc3, 2.Nf3 or 2.e5.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Hilarious Toy (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ fun child's toy but it's a bundle
of laughs!

Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
If you think that something being Open Source under the GPL means
that the name isn't a trademark, try forking off a distribution and
calling it "Red Hat Linux" or "Slackware."

That's a whole different kettle of fish. You can't call your forked
distribution Red Hat Linux or Slackware precisely because those two
names *are* trademarked. But, to the best of my knowledge, the name
Scid is not a trademark.


It is PG who is in the wrong when he falsely call scid-pg "scid"
without permission. That's a trademark violation.

No it isn't because Scid isn't a trademark.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Hungry Cat (TM): it's like a cat but
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ it'll eat you!

Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
Pascal wrote:
I am not sure Scid can be associated to a trademark like RedHat,

You can be sure now. I assure you that it's a valid trademark.
Trademarks are established simply by being used.

No, trademarks have to be claimed.


or something like that. But be sure that if Shane Hudson asks
me to change the name of Scid, I will of course do it immediately

Legally, you are not allowed to use a trademark simply because the
owner never asked you not to. You need his express permission.
He could sue you if he was so inclined, and would win.

On the other hand, the trademark owner has to defend his trademark
once he became aware of violations. If a trademark is not defended,
the courts will take the attitude that it is not valuable to the
trademark owner. Since the trademark is not valuable to its owner,
there can be no harm in somebody else using the name.

In particular, if I owned a trademark and you mailed me mentioning
that you were going to use my trademarked name, I would have to
respond by either allowing you to do so or forbidding you. Not
reacting to such a mail would be seen as failure to defend the
trademark if I later decided to sue you over it. So my guess is that,
in fact, Shane would lose if he tried to sue over trademark violation
here, assuming he had a trademark in the first place (which I believe
he does not.)


Dave.

--
David Richerby Mentholated Newspaper (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a daily broadsheet but it's
invigorating!

David Richerby a écrit :
Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
Pascal wrote:
I am not sure Scid can be associated to a trademark like RedHat,
You can be sure now. I assure you that it's a valid trademark.
Trademarks are established simply by being used.

No, trademarks have to be claimed.

It depends on the country.

I know for sure that they have to be registered in Germany, France, and
Benelux (there are very few exceptions, and only for very famous
trademark that do not need registering to be protected).
I also know for sure that in the US, they have to be used (in fact they
have to be used before registering, if you ever need a formal registration).

For international registration, the Madrid agreement states that people
can register their trademark at the WIPO (World Intellectual Property
Organisation) if they have already registered in one country which has
signed the Madrid agreement. However, people have to pay for each
country they want a valid registration, turning an international
registration into a very costly process.

In many countries, trademarks are not protected any more if they haven't
been used for a "period of time" (5 years usually), and, as David wrote
in his previous message, they have to be defended, or protection of the
trademark is also lost.

james wrote:
David Richerby a écrit :
Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
Pascal wrote:
I am not sure Scid can be associated to a trademark like RedHat,
You can be sure now. I assure you that it's a valid trademark.
Trademarks are established simply by being used.

No, trademarks have to be claimed.

I know for sure that they have to be registered in Germany, France,
and Benelux [...]

I didn't say `registered'; I said `claimed'. Nothing is trademarked
unless you explicitly say that it is. Registration is a further
level, offering further protection.

This is distinct from copyright which, under many countries' laws is
implicit. Under English law, I own the copyright on my words in this
post just because I created it. I don't have to stick a `Copyright
(c) David Richerby, 2007' at the bottom for this to be the case.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Homicidal Mouldy Composer (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a pupil of Beethoven but it's
starting to grow mushrooms and it
wants to kill you!

David Richerby wrote:
james wrote:
David Richerby a écrit :
No, trademarks have to be claimed.

I know for sure that they have to be registered in Germany, France,
and Benelux [...]

I didn't say `registered'; I said `claimed'. [...]

But, by the way, since people have complained about this in the past,
I agree with the things that you wrote that I snipped.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Chocolate Painting (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ Renaissance masterpiece that's made
of chocolate!