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
Rybka is for sell even after the ICGA ruling. Besides that, no one proved in any legal way that Ipppos are illegal. Besides that, no one proved in any legal way that Houdini is a derivative of anything, or more than that, illegal. In fact, it's easier for Houdart to sue you for your above words, than you can sue him.
If you like Crafty more, then don't buy Houdini and go to the download page of Crafty.
Kai
If you go to open-chess, you will find some comparisons between ippolit and houdini 1.0 source. I think that pretty much nails this issue down solidly. Houdini is not, and never has been original code...
This is circumstantial evidence, and, in fact, I have mine too, that's not the point, our basic judgement seems the same. But the evidence is not only circumstantial, it's for a possible derivative of a possible re-engineered derivative of an unknown status, of a possible clone, as stated by ICGA, which is still available legally to buy. And you claim that someone cannot buy Houdini? I guess you need a good lawyer to make your defense against Houdart.
Kai
I don't follow your term "circumstantial"? There is actual RE source from Houdini compared to robo*. I don't think the "buying" part is particularly relevant, but copyright law / GPL certainly is... That's where the "rest of the story" (RIP Paul Harvey) will be told...
The "buying" part is the most relevant. Recently Apple sued Samsung for cloning, won, and that model of Samsung is not sold anymore in Europe, where the court's jurisdiction is. Rybka _is_ legal as long as Vas can legally sell it. Did you won a single court case against Vas? I bet it's unwise for you to claim even that Vas cannot sell Rybka, much more so in the case of a claimed derivative of a claimed derivative of an ICGA clone which is legally sold. With the circumstantial evidence you (we) have, it's 100% that you cannot win anything against Houdart even in Zimbabwe courts, you have only to lose.
Kai
Bob has his mind made up, and is now using his power as moderator to try and punish Robert Houdart. That is not his job as a moderator. He is not the chess police. What he is becoming is a disgrace. IMO
Then you're clued out or in denial. Take your pick.
Really,
Then maybe you can tell me the person who Robert H. stole code from, and if the person you name is making the same charge that Robert stole code.............Waiting............
The Hackers that stole from Rybka to make their perverse point. The aliases are listed at their site.
Any other questions?
This does not answer anything......
Who's code got stolen by Robert Houdart? Give us names if you know them....Waiting
Name(s) of the owner of the code Robert Houdart stole. ___________
Is the person you name that owns the code. Making a charge against Robert Houdart that he stole his code?
Yes or No _________
If you can not answer the questions, then I don't see a problem for Robert Houdart.
Still waiting......
Are you really this dense? You can wait 'till the cows come home for all I care.
Terry don't get all defensive because you could not answer the questions.
Everyone knew you could not give any names because their are no names to give.
Their real names no...very few would know who they are and they're not telling me. However, this has been gone over and thought it clear where rights are and even anonymous authors have to be given credit and of course these turkeys ripped off Rybka which has derivative code from Fruit/Crafty. This is a big problem.
Terry,
Until someone with standing says Robert Houdart stole their code. Who are we to suggest Robert Houdart stole code. Unless we are looking for any way to attack Houdini and Robert Houdart.
It is easy to make charges, but you must have proof to back them up.
The fact is right now Robert Houdart has not been shown to have stolen anyones code.
The fact is his product Houdini is legal to buy.
The CCC Charter says
3. Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others
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???
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".
Until someone with standing says Robert Houdart stole their code. Who are we to suggest Robert Houdart stole code. Unless we are looking for any way to attack Houdini and Robert Houdart.
It is easy to make charges, but you must have proof to back them up.
The fact is right now Robert Houdart has not been shown to have stolen anyones code.
The fact is his product Houdini is legal to buy.
The CCC Charter says
3. Do not contain personal and/or libelous attacks on others
Think about it.
Are you serious? Are you Robert Houdart's attorney? This is beyond absurd. If it's libel he can sue me!
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.
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
Rybka is for sell even after the ICGA ruling. Besides that, no one proved in any legal way that Ipppos are illegal. Besides that, no one proved in any legal way that Houdini is a derivative of anything, or more than that, illegal. In fact, it's easier for Houdart to sue you for your above words, than you can sue him.
If you like Crafty more, then don't buy Houdini and go to the download page of Crafty.
Kai
If you go to open-chess, you will find some comparisons between ippolit and houdini 1.0 source. I think that pretty much nails this issue down solidly. Houdini is not, and never has been original code...
This is circumstantial evidence, and, in fact, I have mine too, that's not the point, our basic judgement seems the same. But the evidence is not only circumstantial, it's for a possible derivative of a possible re-engineered derivative of an unknown status, of a possible clone, as stated by ICGA, which is still available legally to buy. And you claim that someone cannot buy Houdini? I guess you need a good lawyer to make your defense against Houdart.
Kai
I don't follow your term "circumstantial"? There is actual RE source from Houdini compared to robo*. I don't think the "buying" part is particularly relevant, but copyright law / GPL certainly is... That's where the "rest of the story" (RIP Paul Harvey) will be told...
The "buying" part is the most relevant. Recently Apple sued Samsung for cloning, won, and that model of Samsung is not sold anymore in Europe, where the court's jurisdiction is. Rybka _is_ legal as long as Vas can legally sell it. Did you won a single court case against Vas? I bet it's unwise for you to claim even that Vas cannot sell Rybka, much more so in the case of a claimed derivative of a claimed derivative of an ICGA clone which is legally sold. With the circumstantial evidence you (we) have, it's 100% that you cannot win anything against Houdart even in Zimbabwe courts, you have only to lose.
Kai
Not so clear. Some Houdini RE code is becoming public. Time will tell whether the code is found to violate copyright law or not...
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
Rybka is for sell even after the ICGA ruling. Besides that, no one proved in any legal way that Ipppos are illegal. Besides that, no one proved in any legal way that Houdini is a derivative of anything, or more than that, illegal. In fact, it's easier for Houdart to sue you for your above words, than you can sue him.
If you like Crafty more, then don't buy Houdini and go to the download page of Crafty.
Kai
If you go to open-chess, you will find some comparisons between ippolit and houdini 1.0 source. I think that pretty much nails this issue down solidly. Houdini is not, and never has been original code...
This is circumstantial evidence, and, in fact, I have mine too, that's not the point, our basic judgement seems the same. But the evidence is not only circumstantial, it's for a possible derivative of a possible re-engineered derivative of an unknown status, of a possible clone, as stated by ICGA, which is still available legally to buy. And you claim that someone cannot buy Houdini? I guess you need a good lawyer to make your defense against Houdart.
Kai
I don't follow your term "circumstantial"? There is actual RE source from Houdini compared to robo*. I don't think the "buying" part is particularly relevant, but copyright law / GPL certainly is... That's where the "rest of the story" (RIP Paul Harvey) will be told...
The "buying" part is the most relevant. Recently Apple sued Samsung for cloning, won, and that model of Samsung is not sold anymore in Europe, where the court's jurisdiction is. Rybka _is_ legal as long as Vas can legally sell it. Did you won a single court case against Vas? I bet it's unwise for you to claim even that Vas cannot sell Rybka, much more so in the case of a claimed derivative of a claimed derivative of an ICGA clone which is legally sold. With the circumstantial evidence you (we) have, it's 100% that you cannot win anything against Houdart even in Zimbabwe courts, you have only to lose.
Kai
Bob has his mind made up, and is now using his power as moderator to try and punish Robert Houdart. That is not his job as a moderator. He is not the chess police. What he is becoming is a disgrace. IMO
You have been a disgrace for a while, so you'd be much better off to just shut up the nonsense. Things work from a moderator perspective as they have always worked. The one time in a year I have moved a thread "out" for 12 hours and you act like a kid and throw a tantrum? The thread is back. Grow up.
Not only is it in breach of the CCC charter, it is infact considered to be a crime in most civilized countries. Something to think about.
There is actually substantial evidence that RH copied robolito. It is currently on open-chess. To first copy code, then claim no code was copied, then get caught with a RE examination, destroys any credibility he might have with anyone that actually cares...
