Strelka and source code experts

[hgm]

Well, it seems to me the burden of proof is on you, since what you claim defies logic. Show me one court decision where two things that had zero text in common were ruled to be a copy under copyright law...

[Daniel Mehrmann]

Well, it seems to me the burden of proof is on you, since what you claim defies logic. Show me one court decision where two things that had zero text in common were ruled to be a copy under copyright law...

I must proof something ? I must proof nothing.

That's not my task and i have no time and no desire to play your game.

Again, that's a task for the FSF. I do nothing is this case. I'm just a FSF member but nothing more. I'm just reporting things where I think there is something bad in my view. Ask the FSF to get your answer, if you don't want to do that i can't help you anyway.

[Peter Fendrich]

Given that all this is about copying and disassembly is true...

I think that Dann did a very good description of the case.
Look again at the flashback given Andreas Guettinger above.

To start with Fruit and rewrite it to a bitboard program will give a completely restrucutured program not looking the same at all.

Another thing if he really did a copy why didn't he keep the uci code?
It shouldn't be affected at all by the bitboard re-coding.

I am not sure I believe that it is a copy of Fruit.

Can it be a translation problem here?
Have it as a base must not mean to use a copy.

/Peter

[hgm]

It is clearly not a copy of Fruit, or Dan and Bryan would have recognized it as such. They are our judges, and I am convinced that if this case were ever to come to court a professional judge would come with the same verdict. If only because he would consult similar experts as Dan and Bryan.

The code qualifies as an original work. That it might be inspired by other code is not relevant.

That the algorithm it implements might not, is a different matter that was not for the code experts to decide. They could never have passed judgement on this, as the Rybka algorithms are not known to them.

AFAIK algorithms are not covered by copyrights. You enter the realm of patent law there.

[Daniel Mehrmann]

It is clearly not a copy of Fruit, or Dan and Bryan would have recognized it as such. They are our judges, and I am convinced that if this case were ever to come to court a professional judge would come with the same verdict. If only because he would consult similar experts as Dan and Bryan.

The code qualifies as an original work. That it might be inspired by other code is not relevant.

That the algorithm it implements might not, is a different matter that was not for the code experts to decide. They could never have passed judgement on this, as the Rybka algorithms are not known to them.

AFAIK algorithms are not covered by copyrights. You enter the realm of patent law there.

Last try with more clear words for you:

It doesn't count what crap was created or build or made or whatever with the GPL code.

Only one thing is importent and nothing more:

IT WAS RELEASED COMPLETLY UNDER GPL !

Original work ? nice for you, doesn't count !!
Original work ? Why do you used a out of the box system instead a empty new project if you write everything yourself ?! Make no sense.

[Dariusz Orzechowski]

Have you already reported GPL License infringement by the author of Rybka? If you haven't, why not?

[Daniel Mehrmann]

It is clearly not a copy of Fruit, or Dan and Bryan would have recognized it as such. They are our judges, and I am convinced that if this case were ever to come to court a professional judge would come with the same verdict. If only because he would consult similar experts as Dan and Bryan.

The code qualifies as an original work. That it might be inspired by other code is not relevant.

That the algorithm it implements might not, is a different matter that was not for the code experts to decide. They could never have passed judgement on this, as the Rybka algorithms are not known to them.

AFAIK algorithms are not covered by copyrights. You enter the realm of patent law there.

btw i noticed you're not thinking theoretically in this case. You're pointing out, in your answer above, you mean that in the Strelka case.

So, you're starting to support cloning guys. I hope I'm wrong.....

Best,
Daniel

[hgm]

Unfortunately, it makes less sense than ever.

Let me tell you how copyright law works:

Authors are allowed to specify conditions what people can do with copies they make of their (i.e. the author's) work. That can range from "nothing" to an obligation to "make them publically available under the same conditions".

If people violate the imposed conditions, the owner of the copyright can sue them, and they will win.

That is all they can do. That means all the rest they cannot do. In particular, they are not at liberty to define what constitutes a copy: the law defines that. And they are not allowed to put conditions on what people do with non-copies.

Of course they can do al that anyway, and they can still sue people that ignore these illegal conditions. And then they will lose, and have to pay for the trial...

Quite simple, actually.

[Rolf]

Well, it seems to me the burden of proof is on you, since what you claim defies logic. Show me one court decision where two things that had zero text in common were ruled to be a copy under copyright law...

I must proof something ? I must proof nothing.

That's not my task and i have no time and no desire to play your game.

Again, that's a task for the FSF. I do nothing is this case. I'm just a FSF member but nothing more. I'm just reporting things where I think there is something bad in my view. Ask the FSF to get your answer, if you don't want to do that i can't help you anyway.

Ok, that is a possible choice in general. But after your former messages such a choice is looking odd. You made claims or just let's say statements. And then if someone questions your statements he just wants to see your reasons, your justifications for what you had written. This isnt a game, because you had criticised him. This is simple logic what he asked you and you dont know what you could answer? I thought this is a forum for debates. Just typing I'll go to the FSF makes no sense if you dont want to debate your opinions and choices. Either seriously with the Law under your ellbow or just in joking like Simpson, but not by telling a collegue you wouldnt want to play his "games".

[smirobth]

This is my last posting in this case.

Why should anyone believe anything else you say about this case when this was obviously not true.
Also, are you a copyright lawyer? What makes you an expert in this area? Your arguments strike me as more emotional than logical.