Plagiarism and Rybka

[Zach Wegner]

Because Vas gave credit to Fabian (and others -- including Christophe) Plagiarism simply cannot apply -- though other misdeeds are still possible of course. Plagiarism involved pretending to be the inventor of something. There are clearly ideas in Rybka that came from Fruit, but Vas gave credit to Fabian so plagiarism is right out.

We seem to have a different definition of "plagiarism".

[Dann Corbit]

Because Vas gave credit to Fabian (and others -- including Christophe) Plagiarism simply cannot apply -- though other misdeeds are still possible of course. Plagiarism involved pretending to be the inventor of something. There are clearly ideas in Rybka that came from Fruit, but Vas gave credit to Fabian so plagiarism is right out.

We seem to have a different definition of "plagiarism".

OK, what is your idea of plagiarism if it is not using something and failing to give credit for it?

[Zach Wegner]

OK, what is your idea of plagiarism if it is not using something and failing to give credit for it?

Perhaps this hinges more on the definition of "ideas" and "credit". From what I have seen, the word "plagiarism" fits perfectly.

[ozziejoe]

zach, are you refering to some new evicdence, when you say "plagerism definitely applies." The old "evidence" seems to be insufficient, at least in the minds of at least four programers on this forum and the original author of fruit. buy maybe you have uncovered something else?

[Dann Corbit]

OK, what is your idea of plagiarism if it is not using something and failing to give credit for it?

Perhaps this hinges more on the definition of "ideas" and "credit". From what I have seen, the word "plagiarism" fits perfectly.

From what I have seen, his UCI parser code is similar because it uses strtok() a token at a time {a very nice idea by the way}. Considering that this is perhaps .1% of the Rybka code and it is only similar, I think at worst it would be considered fair use.

But to be clear so that I understand you, please give me the definition of plagiarism that you are using.

[GenoM]

zach, are you refering to some new evicdence, when you say "plagerism definitely applies." The old "evidence" seems to be insufficient, at least in the minds of at least four programers on this forum and the original author of fruit. buy maybe you have uncovered something else?

It seems you have some insider info.
Can you share with us, please, if Fabien said the "old" evidence you reffered to is insufficient?

[ozziejoe]

according to my understanding, fabien looked at strelka, and said there were clearly ideas from fruit, but it was still fine. Does someone still have the original quote.

Of course he might not have looked at the specific code you folks have turned up lately. His view i suppose can not be ultimately deciding , even if he is the author of the original

[Dann Corbit]

zach, are you refering to some new evicdence, when you say "plagerism definitely applies." The old "evidence" seems to be insufficient, at least in the minds of at least four programers on this forum and the original author of fruit. buy maybe you have uncovered something else?

It seems you have some insider info.
Can you share with us, please, if Fabien said the "old" evidence you reffered to is insufficient?

He was probably referring to Fabian's decision on Strelka. Fabain has never said anything about Rybka so far as I know. And since he has signed over the rights to FSF, I guess it is FSF who should be consulted.

[GenoM]

zach, are you refering to some new evicdence, when you say "plagerism definitely applies." The old "evidence" seems to be insufficient, at least in the minds of at least four programers on this forum and the original author of fruit. buy maybe you have uncovered something else?

It seems you have some insider info.
Can you share with us, please, if Fabien said the "old" evidence you reffered to is insufficient?

He was probably referring to Fabian's decision on Strelka. Fabain has never said anything about Rybka so far as I know. And since he has signed over the rights to FSF, I guess it is FSF who should be consulted.

But Strelka != Rybka, right? So his argument is flawed.

[bob]

>>>But if you are able to improve enough, you are not guilty anymore.

>>>That is the new standard. Copyright is such "has been"! Intelligent >>>plagiarism is the new "must".


This email is clearly (though implictely) refering to rybka. Have a missed something? Has Vas been found to have plagerized? Please refer me to the link that reviews the evidence.

Because Vas gave credit to Fabian (and others -- including Christophe) Plagiarism simply cannot apply -- though other misdeeds are still possible of course. Plagiarism involved pretending to be the inventor of something. There are clearly ideas in Rybka that came from Fruit, but Vas gave credit to Fabian so plagiarism is right out.

Or perhaps , christophe, you are refering to a different engine when you say "If you are able to improve enough, you are not guilty anymore." Could you please clarify the evidence upon which this statement is based?

best
J

Perhaps he was referring to the fact that you can patent an improvement to an existing patented algorithm and that new patent definitely belongs to you.

Somehow we are using _different_ definitions of plagiarism. It is simply defined as copying existing text verbatim. It has nothing to do with ideas, concepts, etc. It only pertains to copying something verbatim. It does not require that the _entire_ thing be copied. Only that a recognizable part of it be copied...