Strelka -- Open source

[GenoM]

In KasparovChess forum there is an info that in the very beginning of 2008 a new version of Strelka will be released as open source (may be GPL?)

[Kaj Soderberg]

Good, this could clear the air around Strelka. I am sure Juri Osipov is a talented programmer, although he maybe made something old, borrowed and new in the past. I would be happy to see a Strelka (MP) coming up as a creation we could discuss openly about just based on its chess playing merits.
Peace,

Kaj

[ozziejoe]

yes, it will be good to see what is under the hood of rybka beta 1/strelka. I would love to have the programing experts way in on what is so different from previous , non rybka engines.

It does not seem quite fair to Vas to make this GPL, but i guess if the author of strelka legitimatly decompiled the code (as opposed to stealing it), there is nothing illegal about posting the code for all on the net?

best
J

[hristo]

.It does not seem quite fair to Vas to make this GPL, but i guess if the author of strelka legitimatly decompiled the code (as opposed to stealing it), there is nothing illegal about posting the code for all on the net?

best
J

josepe,
you have much to learn about what is legal and what isn't.

It is a sad day when mediocrity feels obliged to steal from brilliance -- all of us lose.

[GenoM]

It is a sad day when mediocrity feels obliged to steal from brilliance -- all of us lose.

wow
What a words
this sentence had to be written in the stone

[smirobth]

.It does not seem quite fair to Vas to make this GPL, but i guess if the author of strelka legitimatly decompiled the code (as opposed to stealing it), there is nothing illegal about posting the code for all on the net?

best
J

josepe,
you have much to learn about what is legal and what isn't.

It is a sad day when mediocrity feels obliged to steal from brilliance -- all of us lose.

Hi Hristo,
I find it hard to believe that any court would find decompiling a free piece of software illegal when its user agreement specifically states "these components are free and can be used and transmitted without restriction".

[hristo]

.It does not seem quite fair to Vas to make this GPL, but i guess if the author of strelka legitimatly decompiled the code (as opposed to stealing it), there is nothing illegal about posting the code for all on the net?

best
J

josepe,
you have much to learn about what is legal and what isn't.

It is a sad day when mediocrity feels obliged to steal from brilliance -- all of us lose.

Hi Hristo,
I find it hard to believe that any court would find decompiling a free piece of software illegal when its user agreement specifically states "these components are free and can be used and transmitted without restriction".

Robin,
I guess your definition of 'free software' is different then mine. 'Free to use' is not the same as 'free to steal' ... if the author wanted his ideas (and implementation) available for free to others to use then the author would have released the source code under appropriate license. However, in this case it seems the author's intent was to allow others to use the software but not to steal the ideas embedded in it.

I would suggest that there is no reasonable court that would take the license without considering the original intent. If this is the case then disassembling the code, stealing the ideas and then releasing those ideas under the GPL is nothing short of thievery.

Additionally,
not all EULA are legal, enforcible nor do they carry a legal status without it being interpreted in the court of law. In all cases 'original intent' is pertinent and can't be disregarded.

In the end, simply because you have given the right for someone to use your software (for free, or otherwise) it doesn't mean that you have granted them (the users) the right to steal (take possession of) your ideas and then give them away for free and outside of your control. This makes no sense, especially if you consider that you are attempting to make a business out of your own ideas. Don't you agree?!

If you want to follow the license in the strictest of interpretations, then you should consider that one is given the right to "use the components" and not the right to extract the ideas from them and then resell (or otherwise distribute) those ideas. IOW, you are granted the right to use the product for it's intended purpose -- play chess -- and not for disassembling it.

Regards,
Hristo

[Graham Banks]

A plea to those posting in this thread to not start making personal attacks.
Some posts have been removed.

Regards, Graham.

[smirobth]

.It does not seem quite fair to Vas to make this GPL, but i guess if the author of strelka legitimatly decompiled the code (as opposed to stealing it), there is nothing illegal about posting the code for all on the net?

best
J

josepe,
you have much to learn about what is legal and what isn't.

It is a sad day when mediocrity feels obliged to steal from brilliance -- all of us lose.

Hi Hristo,
I find it hard to believe that any court would find decompiling a free piece of software illegal when its user agreement specifically states "these components are free and can be used and transmitted without restriction".

Robin,
I guess your definition of 'free software' is different then mine. 'Free to use' is not the same as 'free to steal' ... if the author wanted his ideas (and implementation) available for free to others to use then the author would have released the source code under appropriate license. However, in this case it seems the author's intent was to allow others to use the software but not to steal the ideas embedded in it.

I would suggest that there is no reasonable court that would take the license without considering the original intent. If this is the case then disassembling the code, stealing the ideas and then releasing those ideas under the GPL is nothing short of thievery.

Additionally,
not all EULA are legal, enforcible nor do they carry a legal status without it being interpreted in the court of law. In all cases 'original intent' is pertinent and can't be disregarded.

In the end, simply because you have given the right for someone to use your software (for free, or otherwise) it doesn't mean that you have granted them (the users) the right to steal (take possession of) your ideas and then give them away for free and outside of your control. This makes no sense, especially if you consider that you are attempting to make a business out of your own ideas. Don't you agree?!

If you want to follow the license in the strictest of interpretations, then you should consider that one is given the right to "use the components" and not the right to extract the ideas from them and then resell (or otherwise distribute) those ideas. IOW, you are granted the right to use the product for it's intended purpose -- play chess -- and not for disassembling it.

Regards,
Hristo

Hi Hristo,

I don't think it is our interpretation of "free" that is different. I think it is our interpretation of "without restriction" that is different. For me "without restriction" means "without restriction".

[hristo]

Hi Hristo,

I don't think it is our interpretation of "free" that is different. I think it is our interpretation of "without restriction" that is different. For me "without restriction" means "without restriction".

Hi Robin,
perhaps you are correct and our differences are in the term "without restriction". Of course, there are always implied or explicitly stated restrictions and one cannot pull out a few words from a legal document and then scrap the rest as if it didn't exist. I've been to court with regard to related matters and have had to deal with lawyers ... and I'm almost certain that "without restrictions" doesn't mean what you think it means.

Anyway, legalize can be incredibly twisted and nonintuitive. The point is that one cannot blindly state that disassembly is legal in all cases and it is even less likely that the information obtained through this process can be legally used in the way Strelka's author might do it.

Regards,
Hristo