Rybka 1.0 vs. Strelka

[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?

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

Norm,

I'm not arguing with a moderator hat on, I'm arguing as myself. There's no question of "wishing you to refrain from posting", I'm just being as political about this as you and asking questions. Gander, goose, etc.

Feel free to answer, isn't that the line with Vas? .......

[Enir]

Hi Chris,

[snip]

Fabien says he has no problem.

Where did Fabien say it? This is of key importance in the whole issue.

Enrique

[GenoM]

Hi Chris,

[snip]

Fabien says he has no problem.

Where did Fabien say it? This is of key importance in the whole issue.

Enrique

Fabien said to Corbit he had no problem with Strelka. No word about Rybka, as far as I'm aware.
I think it was in pivate correspondence.

[chrisw]

Hi Chris,

[snip]

Fabien says he has no problem.

Where did Fabien say it? This is of key importance in the whole issue.

Enrique

It's a bit convoluted, but the argument of the "Rybka 1.0 beta might be a clone camp" goes like this ...

Strelka is a reproduction of Rybka 1.0 beta.
Strelka resembles Fruit at a programming level
Therefore Rybka 1.0 resembles Fruit.

The "Rybka 1.0 beta protection society" argues:
Fabian has no worries with Strelka.
If other side wants to argue Strelka = Fruit
then Fabian by extension also has no problems with Rybka.


Bob wrote:
Didn't Vas clearly post "Strelka is a reproduction of Rybka 1.0 and I am claiming it as my own code now"??? I saw that specific comment (probably not those exact words, but semantically _identical_ posted by him when the Strelka / clone issue first broke.

Dan Corbit wrote:
This is what Fabian said about Strelka:
"No worries as far as I am concerned.
Ideas are not a legal property.
The code was rewritten so it's OK with me.
Tournament organisers might think differently.
I cannot say a definite yes or no ..."

[GenoM]

if you wish me to refrain from posting, i will. it's enough for me to simply follow the threads...

Firstly, Zach withdraw himself of this discussion, now you, Norm. Well, it seems we're on the losing side...

[kranium]

if you wish me to refrain from posting, i will. it's enough for me to simply follow the threads...

Firstly, Zach withdraw himself of this discussion, now you, Norm. Well, it seems we're on the losing side...

Geno,
you know it's not about winning or losing...evidence has been presented, it will live or die.

endless discussion and nit-picking becomes tedious and doesn't accomplish much.

I'm not withdrawing...i'm stepping back a little. The concerned parties and powers-to-be will make up their own mind.

[Guetti]

It's not about winning or losing. It is also not about Rybka.

It is about how computer chess will be done in the future. It's about equal right for all programmers.
If it is ok for one person to start with the sources of Fruit, then it should be ok for everbody. If Strelka is a derivate of Fruit, the everybody should be allowed to start with Strelka as a starting point.

I hope people keep that in mind.

[tiger]

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".

Nobody is allowed to take open source GPL'ed code, make this code "his own", and use it in a commercial closed source program.

I'm not allowed to do it. You are not.

If someone does it, I say it's a violation of the licence intended by the original author, I say it's unfair to those who have respected this licence, and don't expect me to keep quiet about it.

Either the game is fair and the rules are respected, or the field is turned into a mess.

Think about it: what's the point in a rating list if the rules are not respected? Find out who is the biggest shark? If there are no rules I can think about a couple of ways to become number one that you are probably not going to like.



// Christophe

It is clear that there are rules but based on my understanding the rules are that only if Fabien complains against Vas you can do something against Vas and it did not happen(I do not know what happens if the programmer of the original program is dead and if another person can complain).

I think that if you take Fruit2.1 and make significant improvements and convince Fabien to let you sell the program(when Fabien get part of the money) then it is clearly fair.

Uri

This issue is being addressed at this time.



// Christophe

[gerold]

Hi Chris,

[snip]

Fabien says he has no problem.

Where did Fabien say it? This is of key importance in the whole issue.

Enrique

Fabien said to Corbit he had no problem with Strelka. No word about Rybka, as far as I'm aware.
I think it was in pivate correspondence.

I think he said he had no problem with Toga. However i think
he was disappointed that someone cloned his work. Just
my opinion.

I don.t think Fabien or Vas will say anything about these talks
here. What could they gain.

[tiger]

If I understand this thread correctly, large part of Rybka 1 is based on the program Fruit 2.1, and make Rybka 1 fall under GPL lisence!?

Lets just for arguments sake say that it is true.
What does this implie?
That Vas has to publish the source code of R1?
Do it mean anything for later Rybkas?

Or is this simply a case of programmers envy? (He is so much better than us, lets get at him and make him reveal his secrets!)

It's all about fairness, fair game, fair play.

Fabien Letouzey has released Fruit 2.1 under the General Public Licence version 2 (GPLv2, lets call it "GPL" here). The choice of this licence is significant because it means that the will of the author is that his code can be re-used at the condition that any derived work is also published under the GPL, which means open source.

In other words, it's like Fabien saying "I give you this code as an act of generosity, I'm not asking money for it, I just ask that you pass this generosity to other if you change/improve this code".

The fact that Fruit 2.1 is GPL is not hidden. It's impossible for a programmer to ignore it. And Fruit being GPL means "if you are a programmer and want to create a closed source program, please do not copy a single line from Fruit".

If you do not respect the licence that comes with Fruit 2.1 and produce a closed source program derived from it, you are unfair in at least 2 ways:
1. you are unfair to Fabien
2. you are unfair to all the people who respect the will of Fabien

I think number 1 is obvious.

Number 2 is because this is a competitive field. Fruit 2.1 was extremely strong at the time it has been published. Many programmers could have used Fruit 2.1 to very quickly get an elo boost and reach the top level.

All of those who did not because they saw that it was forbidden can now see that it looks likely that at least one competitor has allowed himself to use this protected source code to get an advantage.

This is unfair. And either it is fixed in some way, or the field will degenerate into a no-rule area.

The motive is not to get someone's secrets. The source code of Rybka 1.0 has already been published under the name "Strelka 2.0" (actually a version very close to it). So if there is any secret in it, then it's already public.

All the published evidence is only about Rybka 1.0.

The motive is fairness.



// Christophe