Official GPL webpage available?

[Frank Quisinsky]

Hi Norman,

yes, my bad English ... sorry!

Best
Frank

[IWB]

Hi Thomas,

...As far as I know initial Ippo & Ivanhoe & Igorrit were marked as public domain, but of course I might be wrong.
Because I didn't follow all the sources of the Ipp* family - maybe Norman can enlight us here: Is Ivanhoe a direct follow up of Ippolit or Igorrit or is it at least partly based on Robolito. (Whatever license consequence this might have) Anyway, for the moment I think that Houdini is legal, at least as long no-one proves either his code base was GPLed or Ippolit itself is illegal.

Basicaly we agree here. The prove that Ippo is a ripped off Rybka cant be given by VR according to his own words so I think all we can do is speculate ...

Besides, Ingo, don't forget: if something is not explicitely marked as Public Domain it is of course not free.

.
You are right, the Robbos come (today) with a license, but are derived from a PD product ... very difficult to claim a right when you deliver something without a license which comes from something which still is PD (completly free). Even with a GPL delivered with the product, what exactly do you want to claim as your own? The source formating or translation of variables? They might have removed some of errors, the basic idea including the algorithms are still PD!

Actually I dont think that we have any case at all which will stand in any court regardless if there is a License on the Robbos today or not!

BYe
Ingo

[Rebel]

Houdini does NOT contain any Ippolit code.

Contrary to the other open-source engines mentioned above, even if it did, it wouldn't make any difference with regards to the legal side of the issue (which is the subject of this topic).

Robert

Problem is Robert that your are living in a post Rybka world. None believes you because of that.

Hand over your sources under NDA to a respectable non-competing expert for inspection, an expert people trust, that could help.

Good luck.

[kranium]

If Houdini based on Ivanhoe (I believe more a 1:1 clone) sources must be available under GPL

Clearly Houdini is not a 1:1 copy (I strongly believe, as others...that it's based on RobboLito 0.085g3 or RobboLito 0.09...with substantial and commendable improvements).

but if it's based on a GPL program....the sources must be made available, even if it's not 1:1 copy!

[bob]

Couple of things. First, if houdini comes from firebird/ivanhoe/robolito/ippolit, and if, as has been stated, the ip* family was based on Rybka 3 RE + changes, then houdini is a problem either because of the GPL / fruit, or copyright because anything Vas added to fruit would be his, which would violate GPL as well since all changes have to be released.

Second, one can sell a program based on GPL, so long as the GPL is followed, which means source MUST be available. Otherwise, it is a copyright infringement.

Finally, this is only going to get more complicated before it gets better. Ethics are at "low tide" for some...

[Frank Quisinsky]

Norman,

OK, but after the message by Lance I compare Houdini with Robbolito 0.09 and 0.085g3, also with the first IvanHoe versions. After all its quiet clear for me.

I am looking in my backup of chess engines.
copying.txt is included, clearly GPL.

Best
Frank

PS:
I am sure too that the programmer of Houdini added own code. I am sure too that the programmer of Houdini found a bit and have the knowledge to make this sources stronger. But all in all ... Houdini must based on Robbolito.

[kranium]

Norman,

OK, but after the message by Lance I compare Houdini with Robbolito 0.09 and 0.085g3, also with the first IvanHoe versions. After all its quiet clear for me.

I am looking in my backup of chess engines.
copying.txt is included, clearly GPL.

Best
Frank

PS:
I am sure too that the programmer of Houdini added own code. I am sure too that the programmer of Houdini found a bit and have the knowledge to make this sources stronger. But all in all ... Houdini must based on Robbolito.

Yes...it's very clear.

For some reason Robert is not being at all forthcoming about Houdini's origins...
seems he's playing a very sly game with words, choosing them with great care, integrating his answers with substantial denial and evasion.

Apparently, according to it's known history...this world's best program came out of nowhere...overnight!
He must be a true genius to surpass Talkchess beloved genius (Vas R.) in such amazing and rapid fashion!

You can't see me now, but I am actually on the floor prostrate in adoration...
(as per some of the many Vas worshipers)

[Frank Quisinsky]

Bob,

OK, but ...

1. Igorit based on Rybka isn't clear. No proof for recompiling. Parts of Rybka sources in Igorit are unclear, different parts of sources are clear (thinking on the message by Larry Kaufmann). Unclear Igorit sources are later clear with the work Norman do here.

2. Is Vas the programmer of Rybka isn't clear because nobody can tell me that he lost his sources of Rybka 3 and one year later Rybka 4 is available. Which sources Vas used for Rybka 4?

In my opinion:

1. Rybka first versions based on Fruit GPL
2. Houdini first versions based on Robbolito / IvanHoe GPL

In my opinion it is absolutely no problem to recompiled unclear sources.

Again:
I have no problems with the work Norman do here. Can't see that Norman is not faithfully. PD to GPL is OK too. All what Norman done is documented, sources are available. Fruit is GPL and Norman made the same with all the work he do here ... GPL.

Sources by Rybka are't available.

We can't say this one:
Fruit - Rybka - Igorit - Robbolito - IvanHoe - Fire

We can say this one:
Fruit - Rybka
Igorit - Robbolito - IvanHoe - Fire
Robbolito - IvanHoe - Houdini

Between Rybka and Igorit are to many things not clear enough. It seems that parts of Rybka are included in Igorit. But Vas can't give a proof for it that this parts are from himself. In this case all is OK.

Best
Frank

[kranium]

Couple of things. First, if houdini comes from firebird/ivanhoe/robolito/ippolit, and if, as has been stated, the ip* family was based on Rybka 3 RE + changes, then houdini is a problem either because of the GPL / fruit, or copyright because anything Vas added to fruit would be his, which would violate GPL as well since all changes have to be released.

Second, one can sell a program based on GPL, so long as the GPL is followed, which means source MUST be available. Otherwise, it is a copyright infringement.

Finally, this is only going to get more complicated before it gets better. Ethics are at "low tide" for some...

Yes...completely agreed.

Only problem is:
there is absolutely nothing even slightly substantial to suggest that Ippolit is derived from Rybka...?

Then, why isn't IvanHoe tested by CCRL/CEGT?

Well, they have formulated a last resort, weak and measly excuse in an effort to save face after all other excuses/resistence has been refuted...

"the Ippolit authors remain anonymous..and we don't test programs with anonymous authors".
(paraphrase)

How spineless/dimwitted/overbearing is that?
Don't they have any sense of responsibilty to the public?

Isn't their job to simply test (all) in order to ascertain the strongest program?

I guess not...clearly they have pronounced themselves judge and jury in all matters pertaining to any particular program's fitness!

So Rybka is OK!!
Houdini is OK!!

but Ippolit/IvanHoe/Iggorit/Fire/RobboLito, etc.
are simple R3 'clones' and not fit for testing?

It's absurd...

[bhlangonijr]

Only problem is:
there is absolutely nothing even slightly substantial to suggest that Ippolit is derived from Rybka...?

Then, why isn't IvanHoe tested by CCRL/CEGT?

For me it is already clarified and is very simple to understand: They only are testing best versions, and the current best version of the Ippo* family is Houdini.