Strelka and source code experts

[Dann Corbit]

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 publicly 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 all 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.

Two minor points:

Some copyright violations are prosecuted under criminal law. That wouldn't be at all likely in this case, and I only bring it up since you were talking about copyright law in general.

In the USA it is rare for the loser to have to pay for the trial. It could happen, but I wouldn't count on it.

I agree with you that Strelka still does not appear to be a clone (in the chess sense).

I saw at Microsoft a program that was used by the legal department to see if something was a clone. It checked to see if (besides changes in whitespace) 40% of the lines were identical. If they were identical, then it would go on to the next phase of testing. I don't know anything about software law, but I am very sure that Strelka would not appear to be a clone using that test.

[Christopher Conkie]

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 publicly 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 all 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.

Two minor points:

Some copyright violations are prosecuted under criminal law. That wouldn't be at all likely in this case, and I only bring it up since you were talking about copyright law in general.

In the USA it is rare for the loser to have to pay for the trial. It could happen, but I wouldn't count on it.

I agree with you that Strelka still does not appear to be a clone (in the chess sense).

I saw at Microsoft a program that was used by the legal department to see if something was a clone. It checked to see if (besides changes in whitespace) 40% of the lines were identical. If they were identical, then it would go on to the next phase of testing. I don't know anything about software law, but I am very sure that Strelka would not appear to be a clone using that test.

So when the author said he had made Strelka over 20 years we are to believe him?



I'm sorry but no.....

I don't think you could have found it was a clone btw, not without Rybka as well.

But it is a clone......this much is certain.

I don't care if he rewrote everything.

The fact is it is based on closed source and that constitutes theft.

Christopher

[Dann Corbit]

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 publicly 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 all 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.

Two minor points:

Some copyright violations are prosecuted under criminal law. That wouldn't be at all likely in this case, and I only bring it up since you were talking about copyright law in general.

In the USA it is rare for the loser to have to pay for the trial. It could happen, but I wouldn't count on it.

I agree with you that Strelka still does not appear to be a clone (in the chess sense).

I saw at Microsoft a program that was used by the legal department to see if something was a clone. It checked to see if (besides changes in whitespace) 40% of the lines were identical. If they were identical, then it would go on to the next phase of testing. I don't know anything about software law, but I am very sure that Strelka would not appear to be a clone using that test.

So when the author said he had made Strelka over 20 years we are to believe him?



I'm sorry but no.....

I don't think you could have found it was a clone btw, not without Rybka as well.

But it is a clone......this much is certain.

I don't care if he rewrote everything.

The fact is it is based on closed source and that constitutes theft.

Christopher

I posted a software copyright law link previously that shows reverse engineering is legal, under certain sets of circumstances.

Furthermore, Vasik does not seem to care about it either.

The tempest is in the teapot. Will the ship survive?

[hgm]

In the USA it is rare for the loser to have to pay for the trial. It could happen, but I wouldn't count on it.

Well, I am not a U.S. citizen, but I would dare to count on it that in any civilized society you would be made to pay if you are harassing people by suing them without any legal basis whatsoever. Otherwise it would leave the system so wide open to abuse that it would quickly collapse.

[Christopher Conkie]

I posted a software copyright law link previously that shows reverse engineering is legal, under certain sets of circumstances.

Furthermore, Vasik does not seem to care about it either.

The tempest is in the teapot. Will the ship survive?

If I read the tea leaves right the ship has sunk already.

Vas does in fact care. He has suggested that he might reclaim the Strelka source as it is his (at least in part) and release it under the GPL which would also fulfill the Fruit license.

http://www.program-transformation.org/T ... ompilation

I saw your links. The one above is mine. It's quite clear.

Christopher

[hgm]

The fact is it is based on closed source and that constitutes theft.

It is theft, in so far the Rybka license forbids this kind of reverse engineering. (Which I suppose it does.) Otherwise it would not be a (legally) closed source.

It is, however, up to Vas to act against this. If he condones it by saying: "let him have fun with it", this is tantamount to an expansion of the terms of the license, and it ceases to be theft...

It is not our place to be "more roman-catholic than the pope". Vas can give away his code to whomever he likes.

[hgm]

I saw your links. The one above is mine.

From your source, this is an interesting clause, though...

Different countries have different exceptions to the copyright owner's rights or precedent has been established in court proceedings. This means that these uses are allowed by law. The most common ones are:


* Decompilation/disassembly for the purposes of interoperability (to another piece of software or hardware) where the interface specification has not been made available,
* Decompilation/disassembly for the purposes of error correction where the owner of the copyright is not available to make the correction, and
* To determine parts of the program that are not protected by copyright (e.g. algorithms), without breach of other forms of protection (e.g. patents or trade secrets).

[Christopher Conkie]

Vas can give away his code to whomever he likes.

But he did not give it away to Osipov to make Strelka.

It was stolen.

You are talking about the aftermath of the crime. I am talking about the crime itself which it seems is a lost concept with most here.

Yes, Vas can decide what he wants now. The Strelka author can decide nothing.

The Strelka author has no ownership over the engine that he cobbled together.

Christopher

[Christopher Conkie]

I saw your links. The one above is mine.

From your source, this is an interesting clause, though...

Different countries have different exceptions to the copyright owner's rights or precedent has been established in court proceedings. This means that these uses are allowed by law. The most common ones are:


* Decompilation/disassembly for the purposes of interoperability (to another piece of software or hardware) where the interface specification has not been made available,
* Decompilation/disassembly for the purposes of error correction where the owner of the copyright is not available to make the correction, and
* To determine parts of the program that are not protected by copyright (e.g. algorithms), without breach of other forms of protection (e.g. patents or trade secrets).

What are you talking about?

The guy knew what was protected by copyright before he disassembled it.

All of it was copyright.

At that point there he should not have done what he did.

Why is this so hard for grown adults to understand?

He went ahead although and did what is NOT allowed in violation of the copyright of Rybka.

Simple.

Christopher

[hgm]

Agreed, it started out as an illegal act. But it can be legalized "retrogradely". If someone takes my bicycle without asking, he technically exposes himself to theft charges. However, if I don't file those chargers, but say "good luck with it" because I wanted to discard it anyway, he becomes the legal owner (next to being the posessor)..