how far is too far: houdini for sell?

[bob]

...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.

If you find the SAME asm in two programs, there is only one way that can happen. Code was copied...

[bob]

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.

Robert Houdart has REPEATEDLY stated that houdini is 100% original code. Just like Vas. Yet that is false. I DO have a problem with liars. And he is clearly a liar, because he has made provably false statements, REPEATEDLY.

The most likely names are Fabien and Vas. Give everyone time to process the evidence, perhaps you will get what you don't want here...

[bob]

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?

Miguel

Where, exactly, have I "flip-flopped"? I've always stated that I believe robo came from Rybka. I have also stated that we should allow those discussions to continue. I've not changed my position whatsoever here. And with new evidence that is showing up regularly, the case becomes more and more convincing.

[mwyoung]

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.

Robert Houdart has REPEATEDLY stated that houdini is 100% original code. Just like Vas. Yet that is false. I DO have a problem with liars. And he is clearly a liar, because he has made provably false statements, REPEATEDLY.

The most likely names are Fabien and Vas. Give everyone time to process the evidence, perhaps you will get what you don't want here...

Then Bob if Fabien or Vas make a claim against Robert Houdart. Then you can start talking about crimes, until that time stop suggesting Robert Houdart is guilty of a crime.

[bob]

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.

Robert Houdart has REPEATEDLY stated that houdini is 100% original code. Just like Vas. Yet that is false. I DO have a problem with liars. And he is clearly a liar, because he has made provably false statements, REPEATEDLY.

The most likely names are Fabien and Vas. Give everyone time to process the evidence, perhaps you will get what you don't want here...

Then Bob if Fabien or Vas make a claim against Robert Houdart. Then you can start talking about crimes, until that time stop suggesting Robert Houdart is guilty of a crime.

Copying code that is copyrighted IS a crime. You can't use the argument that Robo* is public domain, if IT contains copied code. It would also be an illegal copy that violates copyright.

If you violate copyright law (of which the GPL is a part) then that is a criminal act with potential criminal punishment if it is pursued.

[bob]

At least Houdini's author bothers to answer and communicate every now and then....Vasik was silent like a dead rotten fish....

But eventually gave up, like Robert will do.

Vas never started, so he could not "eventually give up."

He did at his own forum, sick and tired of the ongoing accusations. Not everybody is like you, some people do resign, I can't blame them.

He defended himself? Exactly where. I found NOTHING, except for the usual short statement "Rybka is and always has been 100% original" repeated over and over. Of course he should have given up making THAT statement. It is false.

[K I Hyams]

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.

From the charter:
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:
........................................................ Are not flagrant commercial exhortations.

It was a logical step to combine the best GUI (Aquarium) with the strongest engine (Houdini), Houdini Aquarium is the result.

As there is no more evidence that Aquarium is “the best GUI” than there is that Pepsi is the best Cola, when either claim is made by the manufacturer, it can be classified in the “flagrant commercial exhortations” category

Houdini Aquarium is available at a (in my opinion) very attractive price,

This is an advertising statement, how else can it be classified, when made by the manufacturer? As such, it also falls within the category of "flagrant commercial exhortations".

I know of no no other hobby in which you can obtain the world's best for so little money.

What he admits to be his opinion is tendentious and when made by the manufacturer of the product, can only be considered to be an advertisement that, once again, falls within the category of “flagrant commercial exhortations”.

Three flagrant exhortations within a 5 sentence announcement. A bit rich.

I don't find any of those to be flagrant. "Flagrant exhortations" is uncommon phrasing, and I believe those words are designed to be interpreted narrowly.

As a practical matter, a commercial author should be allowed to announce the availability of each version of his program once. He could include a link to where it can be purchased, but probably not the price or any discounts available. I see no reason he should not also have an opinion about what is the best interface, even if it is wrong.

I don't find any of those to be flagrant. "Flagrant exhortations" is uncommon phrasing, and I believe those words are designed to be interpreted narrowly.

That was the reason why I made a clear distinction between an advertising statement and “flagrant commercial exhortations”. It is also the reason why I deliberately didn’t criticise the 2 advertising statements that featured in addition to the 3 flagrant exhortations in his post.

He could include a link to where it can be purchased, but probably not the price or any discounts available.

I see. You consider that a mention of the price or any discounts is a commercial exhortation but the following are not commercial exhortations:
“It was a logical step to combine the best GUI (Aquarium) with the strongest engine (Houdini), Houdini Aquarium is the result”.
and
“Houdini Aquarium is available at a (in my opinion) very attractive price”,
and
“I know of no no other hobby in which you can obtain the world's best for so little money”.
Whereas your idea of a commercial exhortation, a flat statement of price, can be viewed as factual advertising, two of the three quotes I give actually try to influence opinion on price!!

I see no reason he should not also have an opinion about what is the best interface, even if it is wrong.

Of course he has a perfect right to have an opinion on price. However, context is everything and when a manufacturer puts his own opinion on the price of his own product into a post designed to promote his own product, the result is a commercial exhortation.

If I still have not convinced you that each of those three was a commercial exhortation, consider the possibility that the cumulative effect of the three quotes, together with the two advertising statements does constitute a commercial exhortation.

[K I Hyams]

WOW!
Moderators can see PM's?
I was once told that not!

Hello S. Taylor, Members generally,

The mods definitely cannot see PM's between members.

What Dr. Hyatt, myself and KI (and the other moderators would see) saw was a complaint sent about a particular thread.

All moderators see complaints when they log in as specially coloured text at the bottom of their screen.

I hope that this information helps.

Later.

I was careless with my phraseology. Thank you for clarifying that, Roger.

[Uri Blass]

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...

Houdini came from Robo does not prove that it is illegal and suspecting that houdini has fruit code without a proof is not enough.

For the rybka case there was a decision of the ICGA against Vas but
I have no proof that Vas did something illegal.

There are a lot of differences between Rybka and Fruit and
opinion of ICGA that code is copied is not enough for me.

Personally I believe that Vas started from fruit but changed almost everything but the question is if it is possible to prove based on the exe file of rybka that code is copied(and I do not talk about Rybka1.6.1 and copying from Crafty but about later versions).

Suppose person A translate fruit to some article for chess players that explain exactly what fruit does so chess players can follow the same algorithm that fruit does.

Suppose programmer B does not read fruit's code but read the article
and translate it to code with some modifications.

The question is if this can explain the result of Rybka or the result of Houdini.

If it can explain it then it is possible that no code is copied.

[bob]

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...

Houdini came from Robo does not prove that it is illegal and suspecting that houdini has fruit code without a proof is not enough.

For the rybka case there was a decision of the ICGA against Vas but
I have no proof that Vas did something illegal.

There are a lot of differences between Rybka and Fruit and
opinion of ICGA that code is copied is not enough for me.

Personally I believe that Vas started from fruit but changed almost everything but the question is if it is possible to prove based on the exe file of rybka that code is copied(and I do not talk about Rybka1.6.1 and copying from Crafty but about later versions).

Suppose person A translate fruit to some article for chess players that explain exactly what fruit does so chess players can follow the same algorithm that fruit does.

Suppose programmer B does not read fruit's code but read the article
and translate it to code with some modifications.

The question is if this can explain the result of Rybka or the result of Houdini.

If it can explain it then it is possible that no code is copied.

Answer to both is "no". Unless the article is a very detailed "pseudo-code" presentation, which would make it just a translation of the Fruit source itself.