Rybka 1.0 vs. Strelka

[kranium]

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.

Graham,

as you indicated, the evidence is being posted is in the main forum, thus everyone has easy access and can make up his/her own mind.
your opinion does matter, enormously. one doesn't need to be a programmer to see and determine if one chunk of code is identical to another. (it's all text)

i'm sorry to see that you feel perhaps your opinion has been neglected or devalued. i do know that every programmer i've seen posting here, Bob, Christophe, Zach, etc. has been extremely respectful to all concerned. Bob even takes an enormous ampount of effort and time to answerr all of Rolf's questions in detail, whereas many are starting to ignore. He has the respect and patience of a saint. Are you seriously inferring that with Bob, Christophe, Zach, etc. there are ulterior motives involved, other that truth and fairness?

are you suggesting that said programmers simply want to see the source code of 1.0? no, it's already public. this insinuation is very disheartening...

Norm

[Graham Banks]

Are you seriously inferring that with Bob, Christophe, Zach, etc. there are ulterior motives involved, other that truth and fairness?

I did wonder - yes.

are you suggesting that said programmers simply want to see the source code of 1.0? no...it's already public.!

Is it? I wasn't aware of that.
I took it that in implying that Rybka 1.0 broke GPL, they'd be expecting the follow up versions to come under scrutiny also?

[chrisw]

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.

Hyatt, Wegner, Schmidt, Donninger, Cozzie, Theron, Korshunov and other russian programmers are on the same side. Mehrmann and Benitez have had some suspicions too. Who's on the other side, Graham? From these 'more knowledgeable than yourself' people?
Are you expecting God come down and said the ultimate truth?

Well I'm an ex-programmer, but more to the point I ran a business based on games AI, and my view is that Vas has done nothing wrong.

1. The alleged connection with Strelka is completely irrelevent to Fruit

2. That version 1 beta was not commercial and I doubt it any different to the 500 or more, whatever the number, of "amateur" programs that have suddenly been created in the wake of published free source codes.

3. The Fruit programmer who owns the GPL licence says he has no problems with Rybka in any form, beta, 1, 2, 3

4. If there ever was any Fruit code in beta 1, then it is an absolute guarantee that future commercial versions created will have removed every last bit of it.

5. If Vas looked at Crafty, TSCP, Fruit or anything else he did no more and no less than any other current programmer. If he used bits and pieces of other programs to get his version up and running he will have done no different to any other programmer. Or is anybody seriously suggesting all those amateurs started absolutely from scratch? Hahaha.

All that counts now from his commercial business point of view and that of his publisher is that the R3 version is squeaky clean. Which it is, obviously.

For those people who complain that their source is used by commercials, or that other source is used by commercials (and by used, I mean read, rewritten, learnt from, whatever) the answer is easy. Don't publish your sources over the internet.

[kranium]

I took it that in implying that Rybka 1.0 broke GPL, they'd be expecting the follow up versions to come under scrutiny also?[/i]

if that is the logical occurence of events, so be it. but i doubt very much that is the motive. the programmers posting in this thread have concerned themselves solely with 1.0, for one reason...there is an enormous amount of evidence (concerning only 1.0). what people extrapolate from that evidence can't be controlled.

[Graham Banks]

I took it that in implying that Rybka 1.0 broke GPL, they'd be expecting the follow up versions to come under scrutiny also?[/i]

if that is the logical occurence of events, so be it. but i doubt very much that is the motive. the programmers posting in this thread have concerned themselves solely with 1.0, for one reason...there is an enormous amount of evidence (concerning only 1.0). what people extrapolate from that evidence can't be controlled.

As an anology, when one car outperforms all others convincingly, some are keen to uncover why in whatever ways they can in order to level the playing field.
I'm sincerely hoping that there is no such motive involved here under the guise of seeking fairness and truth.

[kranium]

I took it that in implying that Rybka 1.0 broke GPL, they'd be expecting the follow up versions to come under scrutiny also?[/i]

if that is the logical occurence of events, so be it. but i doubt very much that is the motive. the programmers posting in this thread have concerned themselves solely with 1.0, for one reason...there is an enormous amount of evidence (concerning only 1.0). what people extrapolate from that evidence can't be controlled.

As an anology, when one car outperforms all others convincingly, some are keen to uncover why in whatever ways they can in order to level the playing field.
I'm sincerely hoping that there is no such motive involved here under the guise of seeking fairness and truth.

Me too..
and i have great faith in the fairness and judgement of people like Bob, Christophe, etc.

[chrisw]

I took it that in implying that Rybka 1.0 broke GPL, they'd be expecting the follow up versions to come under scrutiny also?[/i]

if that is the logical occurence of events, so be it. but i doubt very much that is the motive. the programmers posting in this thread have concerned themselves solely with 1.0, for one reason...there is an enormous amount of evidence (concerning only 1.0). what people extrapolate from that evidence can't be controlled.

The GPL is a private, civil law contract. If a program is developed from the relevent source, any contract enforcement is between the original owner (Fabien) and the developer.

It's under civil law. Not criminal law. There is not and there cannot be any possibility of a criminal law breach.

If you don't pay off your credit card as per agreement with Citibank, you break no law, it's a Citibank problem, between you and them. Likewise this is a Fabien problem, and he says he doesn't have a problem.

So, what exactly does it have to do with you?

Probably about as much as your credit card payment history has to do with me?

[kranium]

3. The Fruit programmer who owns the GPL licence says he has no problems with Rybka in any form, beta, 1, 2, 3

I took it that in implying that Rybka 1.0 broke GPL, they'd be expecting the follow up versions to come under scrutiny also?

if that is the logical occurence of events, so be it. but i doubt very much that is the motive. the programmers posting in this thread have concerned themselves solely with 1.0, for one reason...there is an enormous amount of evidence (concerning only 1.0). what people extrapolate from that evidence can't be controlled.

The GPL is a private, civil law contract. If a program is developed from the relevent source, any contract enforcement is between the original owner (Fabien) and the developer.

It's under civil law. Not criminal law. There is not and there cannot be any possibility of a criminal law breach.

If you don't pay off your credit card as per agreement with Citibank, you break no law, it's a Citibank problem, between you and them. Likewise this is a Fabien problem, and he says he doesn't have a problem.

So, what exactly does it have to do with you?

Probably about as much as your credit card payment history has to do with me?

i posted hundreds of lines of code similarities between strelka and fruit...that's all it has to do with me.
Fabien's response to the strelka source code was posted in the washed thread, so i can't reference it.
I simply read it differently, that's all. i didn't see him saying anything like #3 above... to me, he appeared to say 'it's been re-written', so there's nothing i can do'... that was my take. you're entitled to your take.

Norm

[chrisw]

3. The Fruit programmer who owns the GPL licence says he has no problems with Rybka in any form, beta, 1, 2, 3

I took it that in implying that Rybka 1.0 broke GPL, they'd be expecting the follow up versions to come under scrutiny also?

if that is the logical occurence of events, so be it. but i doubt very much that is the motive. the programmers posting in this thread have concerned themselves solely with 1.0, for one reason...there is an enormous amount of evidence (concerning only 1.0). what people extrapolate from that evidence can't be controlled.

The GPL is a private, civil law contract. If a program is developed from the relevent source, any contract enforcement is between the original owner (Fabien) and the developer.

It's under civil law. Not criminal law. There is not and there cannot be any possibility of a criminal law breach.

If you don't pay off your credit card as per agreement with Citibank, you break no law, it's a Citibank problem, between you and them. Likewise this is a Fabien problem, and he says he doesn't have a problem.

So, what exactly does it have to do with you?

Probably about as much as your credit card payment history has to do with me?

i posted hundreds of lines of code similarities between strelka and fruit...that's all it has to do with me.
Fabien's response to the strelka source code was posted in the washed thread, so i can't reference it.
I simply read it differently, that's all. i didn't see him saying anything like #3 above... to me, he appeared to say 'it's been re-written', so there's nothing i can do'... that was my take. you're entitled to your take.

Norm

I don't have a 'take' because I am not a party ot the contract. The contract is civil between two parties (if it applies at all of course, which is questionable). I am neither of those parties. If one of them wants to take the other to court then I'll wait for the judge's verdict. Neither of them wants to take the other to court. Neither of them have a problem.

You didn't answer the question.

Fabien says he has no problem.

Even if Fabien does have a problem ...

What has any possible contract between Fabien and Vas got to do with you?

What has this possible contract to do with you specifically in the period leading up to the world championship in China and the beginning of sales period of Rybka 3?

What is your problem?

[kranium]

3. The Fruit programmer who owns the GPL licence says he has no problems with Rybka in any form, beta, 1, 2, 3

I took it that in implying that Rybka 1.0 broke GPL, they'd be expecting the follow up versions to come under scrutiny also?

if that is the logical occurence of events, so be it. but i doubt very much that is the motive. the programmers posting in this thread have concerned themselves solely with 1.0, for one reason...there is an enormous amount of evidence (concerning only 1.0). what people extrapolate from that evidence can't be controlled.

The GPL is a private, civil law contract. If a program is developed from the relevent source, any contract enforcement is between the original owner (Fabien) and the developer.

It's under civil law. Not criminal law. There is not and there cannot be any possibility of a criminal law breach.

If you don't pay off your credit card as per agreement with Citibank, you break no law, it's a Citibank problem, between you and them. Likewise this is a Fabien problem, and he says he doesn't have a problem.

So, what exactly does it have to do with you?

Probably about as much as your credit card payment history has to do with me?

i posted hundreds of lines of code similarities between strelka and fruit...that's all it has to do with me.
Fabien's response to the strelka source code was posted in the washed thread, so i can't reference it.
I simply read it differently, that's all. i didn't see him saying anything like #3 above... to me, he appeared to say 'it's been re-written', so there's nothing i can do'... that was my take. you're entitled to your take.

Norm

I don't have a 'take' because I am not a party ot the contract. The contract is civil between two parties (if it applies at all of course, which is questionable). I am neither of those parties. If one of them wants to take the other to court then I'll wait for the judge's verdict. Neither of them wants to take the other to court. Neither of them have a problem.

You didn't answer the question.

Fabien says he has no problem.

Even if Fabien does have a problem ...

What has any possible contract between Fabien and Vas got to do with you?

What has this possible contract to do with you specifically in the period leading up to the world championship in China and the beginning of sales period of Rybka 3?

What is your problem?

I believe you have a strong take on it...you've posted your opinions, and more about it than anybody else.

any possible contract has nothing to do with me..., nor you, or anybody else posting in this forum.

my problem seems to be that you disagree with me.
if you wish me to refrain from posting, i will. it's enough for me to simply follow the threads...

respectfully,
Norm