bob wrote:...Now there is RE source code showing that Houdini has identical code to Robolito. ...
I think that just shows that the executable that Robo* was decompiled from was decompiled by the same decompiler as the one that was used for decompiling Houdini. Or possibly the same decompiler and the same compiler. It doesnt really show anything else, at least not conclusively.
I'm not trying to prove that Houdini is an original program. But there's something in me that cringes when somebody gets accused of something without there being any real proof. Its very very unethical in my opinion. Its a huge no-no for me. Thats why I always try to look at things from all possible angles instead of jumping on the latest trend. Witch hunts can be a dangerous, and quite frankly ugly, thing.
ozziejoe wrote:I thought there was considerable evidence that houdini was a close derivative of rybka. Now it is for sell? Whatever your view of rybka (legal or derivitive), there is 0 doubt about Houdini being unoriginal. sigh.
If only we could see a return of crafty to number 1, or the program of any honest programmer.
Plagiarism rewarded.
Best
J
I did not buy houdini but I see no problem with buying non original programs.
Ok to buy "stolen merchandise" as well? I mean, YOU didn't actually steal it...
Wait, you might get charged with "receiving stolen merchandise" anyway... "caveat emptor".
Don't give us the BS about you not having anything against Robert Houdart. It is clear why you took the thread down after Roger said the thread could stay up.
"I don't even KNOW him, so there is no way to like/dislike him".
But you know him well enough to suggest he stole code......
Bob you think he stole code. So you will use your power as moderator to punish him. Even if this means overriding the other moderators .... Yes or No?
Your actions say YES.
First, I didn't override other moderators. You know nothing about the issue. I sent them an email, Roger said he preferred if it remain but be locked, that was done. Any other fiction you'd like to share now???
I see you did not answer the question. You are clearly bias against Robert Houdart and Houdini. To the point you are breaking the CCC charter as a moderator. You are a bias advacate when it comes to Houdini and Robert Houdart. You need to let the other moderators moderate Houdini and Robert Houdart. Since by your own writings you are clearly BIAS.
And causing Houdini flame wars you say you dislike so much by such statements.
3. Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others
"I did not buy houdini but I see no problem with buying non original programs. "
Bob Hyatt wrote:
"Ok to buy "stolen merchandise" as well? I mean, YOU didn't actually steal it...
Wait, you might get charged with "receiving stolen merchandise" anyway... "caveat emptor".
I have not broken any charter point as a moderator. I received two complaints. I looked at the beginning of the thread and found a complaint there. I simply moved it aside and sent the other two moderators an email to get their view. Nothing more, nothing less. You need to grow up and stop trying to find conspiracy everywhere. The thread is back. I assume Roger locked it as he wanted to. End of the story.
I do not like or dislike Houdart, don't know him. I certainly do not like his ethical values. He copied robolito and then later claims his code is completely original. Doesn't make me delete his posts, nor follow him around trying to lure him into a discussion so I can ban him. I've not moderated a single post by him, and have had very little communication with him via posts. Your suggestions are nonsense, with absolutely no evidence to back them up. So try again...
As far as my quote goes, it is DEAD right. Houdini contains copied code. Since Vas claimed robo* was based on Rybka 3, Houdini likely contains both fruit code AND original code Vas added. Both of which are clear copyright violations. You don't like that? Tough. It is simply the truth... Sometimes the truth is unpleasant. But it is ALWAYS the truth.
This is simple professor. You are making a legal claim against Robert Houdart and Houdini. You have no standing anywhere to make such a claim.
The charter does not say you can attack a member here by suggesting they are a criminal because Bob Hyatt thinks he is right.
Again you need to respect the charter. Suggesting someone is a criminal is against the Charter no matter how much you think you are right.
Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others ...Unless Bob thinks he is justified in doing so.
I simply state facts. You are EXACTLY in the same boat as the few remaining Rybka fans. Sorry that you don't like FACTS, but fact is, houdini is based on Robolito. Ton of evidence to support that, more coming each day. Learn to live with it, because it is NOT going away...
Bob you don't know what you are talking about. I am no fan of Rybka, ask Mr. Banks
But this has nothing to do with Robert Houdart. Robert never signed anything that said his program is original. Robert Houdart never played in tournament and took money saying is programs is 100% his own. I understand your problem with Vas.
But your problem Don Quixote even if all you say is true, Robert Houdart did not commit a crime. His product is legal.
If I am wrong, I will ask you give us the name(s) of the person who Robert Houdart stole code from.
And why those person(s) have not made a charge against Robert Houdart.
Bob "Don Quixote" Hyatt tell the CCC community why you are not taking Robert Hourdart to court. Since you have all the goods on him as you claim. You know he has money from Houdini.......so tell us why.
Any efforts to push chess to a higher level deserve an award spiritually or monetarily. In rare cases, like the development of Fire2.2, one can do a perfect job for free. In most cases, people need to be paid for their time in order to continue the efforts. Ippolit is a revolution and the author is satisfied with spiritual award. Robert made it better and it's perfectly OK to be paid. Saying all above, I still won't buy it, not because it's not attractive, but simply too expensive for me.
bob wrote:...Now there is RE source code showing that Houdini has identical code to Robolito. ...
I think that just shows that the executable that Robo* was decompiled from was decompiled by the same decompiler as the one that was used for decompiling Houdini. Or possibly the same decompiler and the same compiler. It doesnt really show anything else, at least not conclusively.
Amazing. This kind of statement tells a lot about the kind of people supporting clones (no offense)... Obviously you didn't even cared to take a look at what Bob is referring to. No clue about the process nor about how it works...
I'm not trying to prove that Houdini is an original program. But there's something in me that cringes when somebody gets accused of something without there being any real proof. Its very very unethical in my opinion. Its a huge no-no for me. Thats why I always try to look at things from all possible angles instead of jumping on the latest trend. Witch hunts can be a dangerous, and quite frankly ugly, thing.
ozziejoe wrote:I thought there was considerable evidence that houdini was a close derivative of rybka. Now it is for sell? Whatever your view of rybka (legal or derivitive), there is 0 doubt about Houdini being unoriginal. sigh.
If only we could see a return of crafty to number 1, or the program of any honest programmer.
Plagiarism rewarded.
Best
J
I did not buy houdini but I see no problem with buying non original programs.
Ok to buy "stolen merchandise" as well? I mean, YOU didn't actually steal it...
Wait, you might get charged with "receiving stolen merchandise" anyway... "caveat emptor".
Non original is not the same as stolen and
I see no proof that houdini is illegal.
Uri
I will repeat. Houdini came from Robo*. IF, and not a very big IF, robo is found to have fruit code, and we KNOW it contains Vas code, copying any of that code is certainly a criminal act, because it is a clear copyright infringement.
IF, and that is a GIGANTIC IF, houdini contains no Fruit or Rybka code, it will be OK. But Robolito certainly contains both Fruit and Rybka code. And that is a problem in that one can not then take the robo source and use it as if nothing is wrong, because that is very similar to receiving stolen property and then reselling it. That IS also a criminal act...
Just wait a bit. Took a while to prove Rybka was based on Fruit/Crafty. Give it a little more time for more evidence to be presented. Won't be long until the cat is out of the bag, again. And this won't be the last such case, either...
Bob says:
"But Robolito certainly contains both Fruit and Rybka code"
What made you flip flop in this area (Robbo v. Rybka)? You agree with VR all of the sudden? You abandoned the alternative that Ippo RE from itself?
By the way, you could not find Fruit in R3 and now you assert that Robbo has Fruit code?
