bob wrote:3. If Vas copied Fruit, he ought to simply say so. Then he could rewrite every remaining line and be free of the GPL requirements and this would settle down.
Is that really true? I mean, the binaries are out already. Unfortunately, you can't fix retroactively, the binaries. Thus, to fix it would require releasing the source, no?
Which I suspect is the whole motive of what is going on.
bob wrote:3. If Vas copied Fruit, he ought to simply say so. Then he could rewrite every remaining line and be free of the GPL requirements and this would settle down.
Is that really true? I mean, the binaries are out already. Unfortunately, you can't fix retroactively, the binaries. Thus, to fix it would require releasing the source, no?
Which I suspect is the whole motive of what is going on.
Is this a matter of dark or bright?
What do we know Rolf? We're not programmers and therefore our opinion doesn't count.
This is ridiculous. I already talked to Swami about this issue, and he is fine with me posting threads in the main forum. Don't expect any more replies from me in this thread, or any other thread I create. I have no interest in this childish BS. From now on I deal with facts only.
And by the way, it's not only programmers whose opinions matter. But for some reason the few people who seem to be able to post objectively without questioning peoples motives happen to be programmers.
Last edited by Zach Wegner on Sat Aug 23, 2008 1:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
bob wrote:3. If Vas copied Fruit, he ought to simply say so. Then he could rewrite every remaining line and be free of the GPL requirements and this would settle down.
Is that really true? I mean, the binaries are out already. Unfortunately, you can't fix retroactively, the binaries. Thus, to fix it would require releasing the source, no?
Which I suspect is the whole motive of what is going on.
Is this a matter of dark or bright?
What do we know Rolf? We're not programmers and therefore our opinion doesn't count.
What is your opinion?
You must have one I guess.
// Christophe
I'm not a programmer and so all this code being produced means little to me.
However, from what I've read, it seems that no matter what is said, there will still be disagreement amongst more knowledgeable people than myself over what constitutes absolute proof of anything untoward.
What I would be interested in is what those like yourself, Bob and Zach are therefore trying to achieve. What exactly is it that you want as the end outcome?
bob wrote:3. If Vas copied Fruit, he ought to simply say so. Then he could rewrite every remaining line and be free of the GPL requirements and this would settle down.
Is that really true? I mean, the binaries are out already. Unfortunately, you can't fix retroactively, the binaries. Thus, to fix it would require releasing the source, no?
Which I suspect is the whole motive of what is going on.
No it is not.
We already have the source code.
It's about fair play, believe it or not.
// Christophe
Hi Christophe,
so what would you like to see happen?
Regards, Graham.
Asking what I would like to never see happen would be more to the point.
I would like computer chess to be "fair". So I would like to never see someone hijacking GPL source code against the spirit of the GPL, and against all others who respect the GPL.
When the game becomes such that you tell to yourself "what a fool I have been to respect the rules", then something is deeply wrong. At this point you either stop respecting the rules, or you try to help the rules to be respected.
Zach Wegner wrote:This is ridiculous. I already talked to Swami about this issue, and he is fine with me posting threads in the main forum. Don't expect any more replies from me in this thread, or any other thread I create. I have no interest in this childish BS. From now on I deal with facts only.
And by the way, it's not only programmers whose opinions matter. But for some reason the few people who seem to be able to post objectively without questioning peoples motives happen to be programmers.
Fair enough. That's why I suggested that it would probably be better off discussed amongst the programmers, in the programming subforum.
bob wrote:3. If Vas copied Fruit, he ought to simply say so. Then he could rewrite every remaining line and be free of the GPL requirements and this would settle down.
Is that really true? I mean, the binaries are out already. Unfortunately, you can't fix retroactively, the binaries. Thus, to fix it would require releasing the source, no?
Which I suspect is the whole motive of what is going on.
Is this a matter of dark or bright?
What do we know Rolf? We're not programmers and therefore our opinion doesn't count.
What is your opinion?
You must have one I guess.
// Christophe
I'm not a programmer and so all this code being produced means little to me.
However, from what I've read, it seems that no matter what is said, there will still be disagreement amongst more knowledgeable people than myself over what constitutes absolute proof of anything untoward.
What I would be interested in is what those like yourself, Bob and Zach are therefore trying to achieve. What exactly is it that you want as the end outcome?
Regards, Graham.
Fair play. So that cheating does not become the forced entry point of chess programming at the top level.
Zach Wegner wrote:This is ridiculous. I already talked to Swami about this issue, and he is fine with me posting threads in the main forum. Don't expect any more replies from me in this thread, or any other thread I create. I have no interest in this childish BS. From now on I deal with facts only.
And by the way, it's not only programmers whose opinions matter. But for some reason the few people who seem to be able to post objectively without questioning peoples motives happen to be programmers.
Fair enough. That's why I suggested that it would probably be better off discussed amongst the programmers, in the programming subforum.
Cheers, Graham.
Do you consider that posting this evidence like a kind of "programmer pollution"?
Imagine that this is discussed only amongst programmers in the programmers' subforum.
Then after a while we come in the general subforum with a statement that says "OK guys, we agree in majority that Rybka 1.0 is a derived work of Fruit 2.1 and consequently breaches the GPL.".
Everybody here is going "Huh?". And so we start again here.
The talks between programmers have already taken place, mainly by private emails or by talking about it when they meet in person.
bob wrote:3. If Vas copied Fruit, he ought to simply say so. Then he could rewrite every remaining line and be free of the GPL requirements and this would settle down.
Is that really true? I mean, the binaries are out already. Unfortunately, you can't fix retroactively, the binaries. Thus, to fix it would require releasing the source, no?
Which I suspect is the whole motive of what is going on.
No it is not.
We already have the source code.
It's about fair play, believe it or not.
// Christophe
Hi Christophe,
so what would you like to see happen?
Regards, Graham.
Asking what I would like to never see happen would be more to the point.
I would like computer chess to be "fair". So I would like to never see someone hijacking GPL source code against the spirit of the GPL, and against all others who respect the GPL.
When the game becomes such that you tell to yourself "what a fool I have been to respect the rules", then something is deeply wrong. At this point you either stop respecting the rules, or you try to help the rules to be respected.
What would you do?
// Christophe
I think we'd all like computer chess to be fair and for rules to be respected.
So the whole point of this thread is to just make people aware that some programmers believe that Vas has broken the rules and is therefore to be publicly vilified as an example to all?
Graham Banks wrote:
What I would be interested in is what those like yourself, Bob and Zach are therefore trying to achieve. What exactly is it that you want as the end outcome?
Regards, Graham.
Fair play. So that cheating does not become the forced entry point of chess programming at the top level.
// Christophe
Okay. You guys basically believe that Vas has "cheated".
