On Crafty...

[bob]

Here's the problem, "there is NO public domain code in either program."

So it means you hold copyright on bubble sort in Crafty?
Interesting, I thought the very same implementation of bubble sort you copied verbatim from Knuth...
Clearly you are lying (since there is obviously quite a bit of PD code in Crafty), so why would anyone trust you when you make your usual baseless accusations?

I hold the copyright on _the_ bubble sort in crafty, yes. Not on the bubble sort idea, but on that specific code, along with everything else in there that I wrote. That was simple, wawsn't it. What PD code was in the Crafty that was copied into Fruit? Today's crafty certainly has Pradu's magic move generation code, attributed to him in the comments. The version copied and used in Rybka certainly did not. Please identify any PD code in Crafty, by specific source file name and line numbers, for the 19.0 version used as the basis for Rybka's bitboard code...

ball is in your court... You certainly ought to be able to go to "sorting and searching" by Knuth and cite the exact page where the code was copied "verbatim", correct? Actually, if you look carefully, Crafty uses _TWO_ different types of sorts, depending on whether it is a full-width node or a quiiece-only node. And the code looks nothing like the code you claim I copied "verbatim".

But, your turn...

BTW, you are now trying to justify your "Robolito/etc/Houdini is legal" on the real "stretch" that all Houdart copied into Houdini was the sort code from Crafty? Are you sure that code is in Robolito? Did you see my _explicit_ reference to the bitboard code (particularly the initialization) that is in Robolito?

We've done been down this road once in the Fruit / Rybka discussion. Same lame arguments Each was disproved, over time, by massive evidence. Houdini's day will come, too. Yuri has already commented on it. But don't let that disturb your thinking... Nor any of the other posts concerning Robo and Houdini. Hang on to that dream for as long as you can...

[Roger Brown]

Dear All,

Milos has made what I consider to be some serious statements about Crafty and by extension, Dr. Robert Hyatt.

As the thread containing his statement was locked I thought it only fair that this part be split off and he respond by outlining the basis of the facts he asserted previously.

The original thread may of course be examined to ensure that his words have been copied as written.

Over to you Milos....

Later.

[rbarreira]

Today's crafty certainly has Pradu's magic move generation code, attributed to him in the comments. The version copied and used in Rybka certainly did not.

Have you seen Rybka's comments?

[aturri]

Today's crafty certainly has Pradu's magic move generation code, attributed to him in the comments. The version copied and used in Rybka certainly did not.

Have you seen Rybka's comments?

As RYBKA is close source, and for the customers there is only available the compiled binary, it doesn't matter if IN THE SOURCE there is such statement. If RYBKA copied Crafty code, then the comment attributing that part as being copied from Crafty should be in the credits, and visible to any customer as it is the Vasik's copyrigth notice.

That's not the case of Crafty, or any other open source software, as you can check all the written comments in the provided source itself.

[rbarreira]

Today's crafty certainly has Pradu's magic move generation code, attributed to him in the comments. The version copied and used in Rybka certainly did not.

Have you seen Rybka's comments?

As RYBKA is close source, and for the customers there is only available the compiled binary, it doesn't matter if IN THE SOURCE there is such statement. If RYBKA copied Crafty code, then the comment attributing that part as being copied from Crafty should be in the credits, and visible to any customer as it is the Vasik's copyrigth notice.

That's not the case of Crafty, or any other open source software, as you can check all the written comments in the provided source itself.

But Crafty is also distributed in executable form. Does the executable state all the copyrights present in Crafty?

The copyright notice in Crafty's main.c says only this:

* Crafty, copyright 1996-2010 by Robert M. Hyatt, Ph.D., Associate Professor *
* of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham. *

There are some files which have other copyright notices, but I couldn't find any for Pradu Kannan. Is his code not used any longer?

I do wonder if it's legally OK to write "Crafty ... copyright R. Hyatt" as a main copyright notice when there is code from other people.

[Chan Rasjid]

Why is life so complicated ?

The ultimate test about any copyright infringement is only when a case goes to court, otherwise we only have a best opinion. Bob usually has copyrights to all codes within Crafty that is not copied from other sources.

Bob most likely have no copyright to his version of bubble sort code IF(?) it is likely any smart guy should come out with the same C codes. But it is different with rotated bitboard. Anyone who has an original rotated bitboard codes certainly has copyrights to it. It is too complicated and no two person can come out with an exact C code and claims one has not copied from the other.

So if there is the rotated bitboard code in Robolitto that is the exact copy of Crafty's, there is copyright infringement - almost all sane person would agree. There is usually no claim to any 'fair_use' principle - simply unfair plagiarism.

A question: Has Robolitto copied the rotated bitboard code of Crafty verbatim ?

Rasjid.

[bob]

Today's crafty certainly has Pradu's magic move generation code, attributed to him in the comments. The version copied and used in Rybka certainly did not.

Have you seen Rybka's comments?

I have seen the author's quote that says, clearly, "Rybka is original code except for snippets to count bits or find the first one bit." That seems pretty clear. I have mentioned here, _many_ times, that I used Pradu's magic move generation code. I sat across the table from him here at UAB at one of the ACCA events hosted here, and we discussed the ins and outs of doing this. So I have hardly claimed that I wrote "everything" but "snippets". I don't think that my rotated bitboard code represents a "snippet". It represents a ton of work and hundreds of lines of code.

I don't follow the "have I seen Rybka's comments?" Do you think he attributes code to the proper sources? If so, to what end, since he doesn't distribute the source in the first place?

[bob]

Today's crafty certainly has Pradu's magic move generation code, attributed to him in the comments. The version copied and used in Rybka certainly did not.

Have you seen Rybka's comments?

As RYBKA is close source, and for the customers there is only available the compiled binary, it doesn't matter if IN THE SOURCE there is such statement. If RYBKA copied Crafty code, then the comment attributing that part as being copied from Crafty should be in the credits, and visible to any customer as it is the Vasik's copyrigth notice.

That's not the case of Crafty, or any other open source software, as you can check all the written comments in the provided source itself.

But Crafty is also distributed in executable form. Does the executable state all the copyrights present in Crafty?

The copyright notice in Crafty's main.c says only this:

* Crafty, copyright 1996-2010 by Robert M. Hyatt, Ph.D., Associate Professor *
* of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham. *

There are some files which have other copyright notices, but I couldn't find any for Pradu Kannan. Is his code not used any longer?

I do wonder if it's legally OK to write "Crafty ... copyright R. Hyatt" as a main copyright notice when there is code from other people.

Pradu made no requirements for using his code, he didn't have a license agreement.

As far as your last question, yes it is perfectly correct, since the piece borrowed from Pradu is clearly indicated in that same source file, and anything Pradu writes is automatically copyrighted by him.

You can look at many books and find things like trademarks and such with a copyright notice on them, and then the book itself has a different copyright notice.

[rbarreira]

As far as your last question, yes it is perfectly correct, since the piece borrowed from Pradu is clearly indicated in that same source file, and anything Pradu writes is automatically copyrighted by him.

What I'm saying is that I did a grep for "Pradu" (case insensitive) on Crafty 23.4 and nothing was found. That's why I was wondering if his code wasn't used anymore.

[Dann Corbit]

Here's the problem, "there is NO public domain code in either program."

So it means you hold copyright on bubble sort in Crafty?
Interesting, I thought the very same implementation of bubble sort you copied verbatim from Knuth...
Clearly you are lying (since there is obviously quite a bit of PD code in Crafty), so why would anyone trust you when you make your usual baseless accusations?

I hold the copyright on _the_ bubble sort in crafty, yes. Not on the bubble sort idea, but on that specific code, along with everything else in there that I wrote. That was simple, wawsn't it. What PD code was in the Crafty that was copied into Fruit? Today's crafty certainly has Pradu's magic move generation code, attributed to him in the comments. The version copied and used in Rybka certainly did not. Please identify any PD code in Crafty, by specific source file name and line numbers, for the 19.0 version used as the basis for Rybka's bitboard code...

ball is in your court... You certainly ought to be able to go to "sorting and searching" by Knuth and cite the exact page where the code was copied "verbatim", correct? Actually, if you look carefully, Crafty uses _TWO_ different types of sorts, depending on whether it is a full-width node or a quiiece-only node. And the code looks nothing like the code you claim I copied "verbatim".

But, your turn...

BTW, you are now trying to justify your "Robolito/etc/Houdini is legal" on the real "stretch" that all Houdart copied into Houdini was the sort code from Crafty? Are you sure that code is in Robolito? Did you see my _explicit_ reference to the bitboard code (particularly the initialization) that is in Robolito?

We've done been down this road once in the Fruit / Rybka discussion. Same lame arguments Each was disproved, over time, by massive evidence. Houdini's day will come, too. Yuri has already commented on it. But don't let that disturb your thinking... Nor any of the other posts concerning Robo and Houdini. Hang on to that dream for as long as you can...

It can be safely said that Crafty's code is beyond reproach.
All contributed code is clearly documented. The historical commentary found in main.c is the example for all programmers to follow.

It would be a benefit to mankind if not just every computer chess program but every program in general were programmed and documented in this way.

As far as the implementation of bubble sort, it is also obvious that Dr. Hyatt has copyright on his own implementation. Failure to understand this is failure to understand what "copyright" means.

Yes, I am a Dr. Hyatt fan, I freely admit. However, that has nothing to do with my opinion on this matter.