Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
as I said before, it's not a fair trial. And folks here keep screaming "innocent until proven". They will keep rejecting whatever prove gonna provided.Terry McCracken wrote: You guys screamed for evidence and it was provided. You screamed for proof and some of that was provided. Now YOU DEMAND answers on YOUR TIMETABLE while doing nothing at all other than attack top people in the field personally!!
And that's ALREADY done in first place, a part of Rybka source is quite convincing to be similiar to Fruit.Graham Banks wrote:The difference is that you're dealing with an engine that has gone commercial, so you need to much more careful in how you go about things.bob wrote:You do realize that part of "building the case" was done _right_ here. As were prior clone discussions about other programs such as Le Petite, Voyager, Bionic, to name some that were copied from my program. This is the right place to discuss this. It is a "discussion forum" where lots of technically competent people participate... So discussions should not happen on a discussion forum until after the discussions are completed???? How, then, can that happen. How can people join in and participate if they don't know there is something to participate in?Graham Banks wrote:You should build a watertight case and then present it rather than making accusations beforehand.Zach Wegner wrote:Just curious, what exactly did we/they do?Graham Banks wrote:I have a lot of respect for those involved, but I abhor the way they went about their project.
It seems to me that whatever genuine efforts anybody had in this were drowned in an ocean of inane argumentation. IOW, neither side was fully to blame for what ensued.
This angle of the discussion is a bit hard to digest...
You could be seen as damaging the product as well as the author's reputation. Such aspersions can therefore be seen as legally dubious and therefore against the CCC charter.
That's why only a watertight case should be presented as the first action.
Regards, Graham.
What I'm saying Evgeni is that tarnishing a commercial product without absolute proof is both legally dubious (which is against the CCC charter), and is also legally foolish.GenoM wrote:I hope that with your statements above you were not saying that its more acceptable to accuse freeware authors than commercial ones.Graham Banks wrote: The difference is that you're dealing with an engine that has gone commercial, so you need to much more careful in how you go about things.
You could be seen as damaging the product as well as the author's reputation. Such aspersions can therefore be seen as legally dubious and therefore against the CCC charter.
That's why only a watertight case should be presented as the first action.
Regards, Graham.
I hope that with your statements above you were not giving indulgence to possible cloners who have gone commercial.
I hope that with your statements above you weren't against free discussions here.
May be its time to get a difference between "free discussion" and "smear campaign".
I'm not a programmer Peter, but a watertight case means absolutely no doubt whatsoever.Peter Aloysius wrote:And that's ALREADY done in first place, a part of Rybka source is quite convincing to be similiar to Fruit.Graham Banks wrote:The difference is that you're dealing with an engine that has gone commercial, so you need to much more careful in how you go about things.bob wrote:You do realize that part of "building the case" was done _right_ here. As were prior clone discussions about other programs such as Le Petite, Voyager, Bionic, to name some that were copied from my program. This is the right place to discuss this. It is a "discussion forum" where lots of technically competent people participate... So discussions should not happen on a discussion forum until after the discussions are completed???? How, then, can that happen. How can people join in and participate if they don't know there is something to participate in?Graham Banks wrote:You should build a watertight case and then present it rather than making accusations beforehand.Zach Wegner wrote:Just curious, what exactly did we/they do?Graham Banks wrote:I have a lot of respect for those involved, but I abhor the way they went about their project.
It seems to me that whatever genuine efforts anybody had in this were drowned in an ocean of inane argumentation. IOW, neither side was fully to blame for what ensued.
This angle of the discussion is a bit hard to digest...
You could be seen as damaging the product as well as the author's reputation. Such aspersions can therefore be seen as legally dubious and therefore against the CCC charter.
That's why only a watertight case should be presented as the first action.
Regards, Graham.
The prove is ALREADY presented. And YOU still reject, claiming that variable name is different, or just concidence, or Vas able to memorize Fruit source code.
You said that watertight case should be presented, but some folks here doing whatever they can to keep that from happen. You guys here make personal attack to people who were trying to present those "watertight case" !!! AND if those watertight case is presented, you still reject it anyway.
Are you, Graha, a law expert?Graham Banks wrote:What I'm saying Evgeni is that tarnishing a commercial product without absolute proof is both legally dubious (which is against the CCC charter), and is also legally foolish.GenoM wrote:I hope that with your statements above you were not saying that its more acceptable to accuse freeware authors than commercial ones.Graham Banks wrote: The difference is that you're dealing with an engine that has gone commercial, so you need to much more careful in how you go about things.
You could be seen as damaging the product as well as the author's reputation. Such aspersions can therefore be seen as legally dubious and therefore against the CCC charter.
That's why only a watertight case should be presented as the first action.
Regards, Graham.
I hope that with your statements above you were not giving indulgence to possible cloners who have gone commercial.
I hope that with your statements above you weren't against free discussions here.
May be its time to get a difference between "free discussion" and "smear campaign".
Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response messages:GenoM wrote:Are you, Graha, a law expert?Graham Banks wrote:What I'm saying Evgeni is that tarnishing a commercial product without absolute proof is both legally dubious (which is against the CCC charter), and is also legally foolish.GenoM wrote:I hope that with your statements above you were not saying that its more acceptable to accuse freeware authors than commercial ones.Graham Banks wrote: The difference is that you're dealing with an engine that has gone commercial, so you need to much more careful in how you go about things.
You could be seen as damaging the product as well as the author's reputation. Such aspersions can therefore be seen as legally dubious and therefore against the CCC charter.
That's why only a watertight case should be presented as the first action.
Regards, Graham.
I hope that with your statements above you were not giving indulgence to possible cloners who have gone commercial.
I hope that with your statements above you weren't against free discussions here.
May be its time to get a difference between "free discussion" and "smear campaign".
ozziejoe wrote:I know there were some folks who were building a case that rybka 1.0 involved plagersism of fruit code. My understanding is that this case was to be presented to vas so he could respond. I assumed the case would have a detailed description of all (or at least many) of the acts of plaggerism found in rybka 1.0.
Has this case (or letter) been sent to Vas yet, and if so, can it be made public?
I am curious as to what the last month of decompiling work has yielded
best
J
Graham, no doubt whatsoever for whom? This case would be solved "with no doubt whatsoever" if - and this is the _only_ possibility - if Rybka beta sources are opened to the expertise.Graham Banks wrote: I'm not a programmer Peter, but a watertight case means absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
Such a case was not presented as far as I'm aware.
Regards, Graham.
Graham, I was asking you a simple question:Graham Banks wrote:Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response messages:GenoM wrote:Are you, Graha, a law expert?Graham Banks wrote:What I'm saying Evgeni is that tarnishing a commercial product without absolute proof is both legally dubious (which is against the CCC charter), and is also legally foolish.GenoM wrote:I hope that with your statements above you were not saying that its more acceptable to accuse freeware authors than commercial ones.Graham Banks wrote: The difference is that you're dealing with an engine that has gone commercial, so you need to much more careful in how you go about things.
You could be seen as damaging the product as well as the author's reputation. Such aspersions can therefore be seen as legally dubious and therefore against the CCC charter.
That's why only a watertight case should be presented as the first action.
Regards, Graham.
I hope that with your statements above you were not giving indulgence to possible cloners who have gone commercial.
I hope that with your statements above you weren't against free discussions here.
May be its time to get a difference between "free discussion" and "smear campaign".
1. Are, within reason, on the topic of computer chess
2. Are not abusive in nature
3. Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others
4. Are not flagrant commercial exhortations
5. Are not of questionable legal status.
A panel of moderators has the power to erase specific messages that violate the spirit of the charter of the Computer-Chess Club, and to take, if necessary, suitable sanctions against offenders.
And somebody has also added that under US law, the owner of the forum can be held legally accountable for material posted.
First of all, I didn't write the charter.GenoM wrote:Graham, no doubt whatsoever for whom? This case would be solved "with no doubt whatsoever" if - and this is the _only_ possibility - if Rybka beta sources are opened to the expertise.Graham Banks wrote: I'm not a programmer Peter, but a watertight case means absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
Such a case was not presented as far as I'm aware.
Regards, Graham.
Do you really believe there is such a possibility?
Till now only freeware engines were "proven" clones. With no enough evidence - at least with no such evidence you insist on here.
Patriot case doesn't count. It was newly converted freeware from an East Europian author promoted by new company. For me that was pure attack on Frank Quisinsky and his aspiring company. Successful attack, I would say, because as result FQ disappeared from the active computer chess scene. His company too.