Fruit 2.1 vs Strelka 2.0

[Uri Blass]

I doubt if you can know the order that things are done in rybka based on strelka's code.

But as I said in my message, I disassembled Rybka. It IS the same. I'll post the disassembly later today.

You may be right but I think that it is too late to do something about it today.

The legal status is unclear
You can try to go to court against Vas but I do not think that you will have success in doing it .

Uri

You seem to oppose the whole idea that Strelka is a derived work from Fruit, even when you are shown the similarities. Then you oppose the idea that Rybka is almost the same as Strelka (so close that the word clone can apply). Then you say that some part of the code should not be considered as important and should be exempted.

What's next? The font used to display the source is not readable?

And you do not contradict factually the source code analysis that is done.

I would have expected a more objective approach from you, but when I read your other post where you clearly say that you fear that your own program is considered a derived work because you have taken from several open source program, I understand that your point of view is biased.

Uri I expected more intellectual honesty from you. If you do not want to follow the analysis of source code because all the time you fear that someday your own code could comes under scrutinity, then maybe you should not take part in this thread?

Or maybe this thread is going to be of fundamental interest to you as it will help you clean your code?

So, when do we discuss directly the presented evidence?



// Christophe

There is nothing against taking code from an open source programm as long it is no violation of any license and the engine author (is asked in advance!!) and has nothing against sharing some lines of code.

There are open source authors that like to share ideas, or even code, like Tord or maybe under certain circumstances even Bob.

As you come form a commercial standpoint, you may probably not be aware of this concept.

I can say that there was a discussion in CCC about it and Bob had no problem to allow me to use the part of Crafty that read pgn(I could not use it in the exact way that it was used and had to modify some things but basically he had no objection as long as it is not used for move choice out of book but only to read pgn).

From my point of view as long as Fabien has no objection there should be no problem with not releasing the code of rybka1.

Uri

[Uri Blass]

one more comment

I do not plan to continue movei as it is and I did not work on movei in the last half year.
I may write a new engine but at this point of time I still did not start to do it.

[tiger]

If you are inclined to not see the similarities between Fruit and Strelka because you fear that your own work is questionned, then I would say that you are somewhat biased for personal reasons.



// Christophe

I can see the similiarity but I think that people can claim that there is a problem not only with my own work but with the work of many programmers who worked hard to generate their program and did not start by modifying public source.

I remember reading that some even admit that they started from free source working program(when I only started from few constants and few names of functions).

If you claim that Fabien's opinion is not important here then the same is for programs that started as tscp or faile when the author had no problem with it because he thinks that the modification is big enough to consider it as acceptable.

I think that you simply have no basis to ask Vasik to release his source if you are not Fabien.
I think that the best that you can do is to try to convince Fabien to complain and I am not sure if even in this case the court is going to decide for Fabien.

Uri

Maybe there is also a problem with your engine and a number of ohers, indeed. How would I know?

And I can see how it could be a reason for you to close your eyes as we provide evidence about Fruit/Strelka.

I do not know what actions will be taken and by whom, and I do not care much at this time.

I have stated in another thread that I had noticed obvious similarities between the source codes of two programs that were supposed to be unrelated. That I believe that one source is a derived work of the other. I have been highly criticized for what I have said.

Evidence is now presented.

That's where we stand at this time.

The fact that you may think that it's pointless to present it does not make it less interesting to others, I hope.



// Christophe

[Guetti]

From my point of view as long as Fabien has no objection there should be no problem with not releasing the code of rybka1.

Uri

No, no, no, no.
Fabien released Fruit under the GPL, it was a decision, so any code taken from this GPL project has to confer to the GPL. This is not the same as if you share some code with a private open source project as crafty.

open source != GPL

[tiger]

I doubt if you can know the order that things are done in rybka based on strelka's code.

But as I said in my message, I disassembled Rybka. It IS the same. I'll post the disassembly later today.

You may be right but I think that it is too late to do something about it today.

The legal status is unclear
You can try to go to court against Vas but I do not think that you will have success in doing it .

Uri

You seem to oppose the whole idea that Strelka is a derived work from Fruit, even when you are shown the similarities. Then you oppose the idea that Rybka is almost the same as Strelka (so close that the word clone can apply). Then you say that some part of the code should not be considered as important and should be exempted.

What's next? The font used to display the source is not readable?

And you do not contradict factually the source code analysis that is done.

I would have expected a more objective approach from you, but when I read your other post where you clearly say that you fear that your own program is considered a derived work because you have taken from several open source program, I understand that your point of view is biased.

Uri I expected more intellectual honesty from you. If you do not want to follow the analysis of source code because all the time you fear that someday your own code could comes under scrutinity, then maybe you should not take part in this thread?

Or maybe this thread is going to be of fundamental interest to you as it will help you clean your code?

So, when do we discuss directly the presented evidence?



// Christophe

There is nothing against taking code from an open source programm as long it is no violation of any license and the engine author (is asked in advance!!) and has nothing against sharing some lines of code.

There are open source authors that like to share ideas, or even code, like Tord or maybe under certain circumstances even Bob.

As you come form a commercial standpoint, you may probably not be aware of this concept.

You seem to not be aware of the GPL and how it works.

Fruit 2.1 is published under the GPL, which makes it very clear what it is allowed to do with it or not.

It is allowed that GPL code is re-used. When it is done, the resulting work MUST be published under GPL and the source code made available with it. That's the main point of the GPL.

If the source code of Fruit has been taken and modified and the result is Rybka 1.0, then we clearly have a violation of the GPL as the GPL requirement that the source code of the resulting work is published has not been fulfilled.

Fabien has released Fruit 2.1 under the GPL, which seems to clearly indicate that he wanted all derived work to stay open source. If it was not the case he would have chosen another licence.

BTW, what was your point exactly? That it does not matter if Rybka 1.0 is a derived work of Fruit?



// Christophe

[Rolf]

If you are inclined to not see the similarities between Fruit and Strelka because you fear that your own work is questionned, then I would say that you are somewhat biased for personal reasons.



// Christophe

I can see the similiarity but I think that people can claim that there is a problem not only with my own work but with the work of many programmers who worked hard to generate their program and did not start by modifying public source.

I remember reading that some even admit that they started from free source working program(when I only started from few constants and few names of functions).

If you claim that Fabien's opinion is not important here then the same is for programs that started as tscp or faile when the author had no problem with it because he thinks that the modification is big enough to consider it as acceptable.

I think that you simply have no basis to ask Vasik to release his source if you are not Fabien.
I think that the best that you can do is to try to convince Fabien to complain and I am not sure if even in this case the court is going to decide for Fabien.

Uri

Maybe there is also a problem with your engine and a number of ohers, indeed. How would I know?

And I can see how it could be a reason for you to close your eyes as we provide evidence about Fruit/Strelka.

I do not know what actions will be taken and by whom, and I do not care much at this time.

I have stated in another thread that I had noticed obvious similarities between the source codes of two programs that were supposed to be unrelated. That I believe that one source is a derived work of the other. I have been highly criticized for what I have said.

Evidence is now presented.

That's where we stand at this time.

The fact that you may think that it's pointless to present it does not make it less interesting to others, I hope.



// Christophe

Programmers in computerchess have their views but psychologists have their own. Right from the beginning of your campaign, Christophe, I asked myself whay you showed up with the avatar only accompagnied by your little daughter and I thought, does he beg us to not to shoot him for the sake of that little girl? And I asked myself, why CT didnt show up with his beautiful wife anymore who has to pay the high penalties CT has to produce for the damages out of his campaign? Because of why??

Chris, this isnt a personal attack, it's not evil, it's a joke, but it's also a final try to make Christophe reconsider, who appears to me like on an amoker trip somehow. Ok, only from my uninteresting psychology perspective. IMO CT cant win this and he by doing so will destroy completely his decent standing in computerchess. Because this, little girl or not, looks like the amoking from someone who has lost his ability to compete successfully. Sad to see and with a tear in my eyes for the little one who's so innocent...

Chris if you read this, please take a minute to reflect what I said. Just take it from someone who has no dogs running here, who has no commercial interests to defend or propagate. Believe me and dont make Ed's mistake who also couldnt believe that someone without any financial obligations or connections could be so engaged in such a debate. Then you simply dont understand me. I am fighting for a minimum of ethics in computerchess, nothing more but also nothing less.

All the best to you and family. And I repeat it in clarity. This will lead you to nowhere and what will stay is simply that you must defend and explain for the rest of you active time in computerchess and that after the splendid times of Tiger. What a pity!

[tiger]

one more comment

I do not plan to continue movei as it is and I did not work on movei in the last half year.
I may write a new engine but at this point of time I still did not start to do it.

I remember the time you had no chess engine and you did not know how to program. I remember you asked questions and made suggestions. I remember when you have started to write your own engine. Now you not only have written your own engine, but it is also respectably strong.

I wish you and your engine Movei the best.



// Christophe

[Guetti]

I doubt if you can know the order that things are done in rybka based on strelka's code.

But as I said in my message, I disassembled Rybka. It IS the same. I'll post the disassembly later today.

You may be right but I think that it is too late to do something about it today.

The legal status is unclear
You can try to go to court against Vas but I do not think that you will have success in doing it .

Uri

You seem to oppose the whole idea that Strelka is a derived work from Fruit, even when you are shown the similarities. Then you oppose the idea that Rybka is almost the same as Strelka (so close that the word clone can apply). Then you say that some part of the code should not be considered as important and should be exempted.

What's next? The font used to display the source is not readable?

And you do not contradict factually the source code analysis that is done.

I would have expected a more objective approach from you, but when I read your other post where you clearly say that you fear that your own program is considered a derived work because you have taken from several open source program, I understand that your point of view is biased.

Uri I expected more intellectual honesty from you. If you do not want to follow the analysis of source code because all the time you fear that someday your own code could comes under scrutinity, then maybe you should not take part in this thread?

Or maybe this thread is going to be of fundamental interest to you as it will help you clean your code?

So, when do we discuss directly the presented evidence?



// Christophe

There is nothing against taking code from an open source programm as long it is no violation of any license and the engine author (is asked in advance!!) and has nothing against sharing some lines of code.

There are open source authors that like to share ideas, or even code, like Tord or maybe under certain circumstances even Bob.

As you come form a commercial standpoint, you may probably not be aware of this concept.

You seem to not be aware of the GPL and how it works.

Fruit 2.1 is published under the GPL, which makes it very clear what it is allowed to do with it or not.

It is allowed that GPL code is re-used. When it is done, the resulting work MUST be published under GPL and the source code made available with it. That's the main point of the GPL.

If the source code of Fruit has been taken and modified and the result is Rybka 1.0, then we clearly have a violation of the GPL as the GPL requirement that the source code of the resulting work is published has not been fulfilled.

Fabien has released Fruit 2.1 under the GPL, which seems to clearly indicate that he wanted all derived work to stay open source. If it was not the case he would have chosen another licence.

BTW, what was your point exactly? That it does not matter if Rybka 1.0 is a derived work of Fruit?



// Christophe

I completely agree, that is what I said in my other post. However, above I was speaking about non GPL open source code.

There is nothing against taking code from an open source programm as long it is no violation of any license and the engine author (is asked in advance!!) and has nothing against sharing some lines of code.

[tiger]

I doubt if you can know the order that things are done in rybka based on strelka's code.

But as I said in my message, I disassembled Rybka. It IS the same. I'll post the disassembly later today.

You may be right but I think that it is too late to do something about it today.

The legal status is unclear
You can try to go to court against Vas but I do not think that you will have success in doing it .

Uri

You seem to oppose the whole idea that Strelka is a derived work from Fruit, even when you are shown the similarities. Then you oppose the idea that Rybka is almost the same as Strelka (so close that the word clone can apply). Then you say that some part of the code should not be considered as important and should be exempted.

What's next? The font used to display the source is not readable?

And you do not contradict factually the source code analysis that is done.

I would have expected a more objective approach from you, but when I read your other post where you clearly say that you fear that your own program is considered a derived work because you have taken from several open source program, I understand that your point of view is biased.

Uri I expected more intellectual honesty from you. If you do not want to follow the analysis of source code because all the time you fear that someday your own code could comes under scrutinity, then maybe you should not take part in this thread?

Or maybe this thread is going to be of fundamental interest to you as it will help you clean your code?

So, when do we discuss directly the presented evidence?



// Christophe

There is nothing against taking code from an open source programm as long it is no violation of any license and the engine author (is asked in advance!!) and has nothing against sharing some lines of code.

There are open source authors that like to share ideas, or even code, like Tord or maybe under certain circumstances even Bob.

As you come form a commercial standpoint, you may probably not be aware of this concept.

You seem to not be aware of the GPL and how it works.

Fruit 2.1 is published under the GPL, which makes it very clear what it is allowed to do with it or not.

It is allowed that GPL code is re-used. When it is done, the resulting work MUST be published under GPL and the source code made available with it. That's the main point of the GPL.

If the source code of Fruit has been taken and modified and the result is Rybka 1.0, then we clearly have a violation of the GPL as the GPL requirement that the source code of the resulting work is published has not been fulfilled.

Fabien has released Fruit 2.1 under the GPL, which seems to clearly indicate that he wanted all derived work to stay open source. If it was not the case he would have chosen another licence.

BTW, what was your point exactly? That it does not matter if Rybka 1.0 is a derived work of Fruit?



// Christophe

I completely agree, that is what I said in my other post. However, above I was speaking about non GPL open source code.

There is nothing against taking code from an open source programm as long it is no violation of any license and the engine author (is asked in advance!!) and has nothing against sharing some lines of code.

OK, then as Fruit 2.1 is GPL and as far as we know there has been no special autorization given by Fabien to anyone, I think we are asking legitimate questions.

And if Fabien has given or give a special authorization at any time in the future, I hope the same authorization will be given to everybody, not just one commercial entity.



// Christophe

[Uri Blass]

From my point of view as long as Fabien has no objection there should be no problem with not releasing the code of rybka1.

Uri

No, no, no, no.
Fabien released Fruit under the GPL, it was a decision, so any code taken from this GPL project has to confer to the GPL. This is not the same as if you share some code with a private open source project as crafty.

open source != GPL

So what is possible to do if Fabien does not complain.

What you can practically do against Vasik except asking not to alllow rybka to play in tournaments?

Uri