Rybka 1.0 vs. Strelka

[Zach Wegner]

As you may have notice the original posters who may have thought Vas ccopied from someone else no longer post here. Ever wonder why?

Hmmm... I don't know. Why?

[Zach Wegner]

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

I'd just like to clarify this publicly. I withdrew myself mostly from just this thread, for two reasons. First, the thread has gotten far too bloated with a bunch of meaningless arguments. Everything I say here just seems to add more noise. I'd like to keep the discussion civil and to the point. Second, replying to all the posts takes up too much of my time. Time that could be used for many things, including....

...reverse engineering.

[GenoM]

Second, replying to all the posts takes up too much of my time. Time that could be used for many things, including....

...reverse engineering.

I liked the final sentence very much

[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

Rumour has it that Fabien transferred the GPL to the FSF, if that's the case, it doesn't matter any more what Fabien says (in a legal sense).

[bob]

Hi Chris,

[snip]

Fabien says he has no problem.

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

Enrique

Actually it doesn't matter from the GPL point of view. Fabien would be the natural person to complain if his code was copied, but if someone else could prove they were "damaged" by this, again assuming it turns out to be what it appears, then they could also have legal recourse, particularly if they are/were commercial and could show that this hurt their sales. So it isn't quite cut and dried...

[bob]

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

Here is my main concern with respect to copying/cloning/etc. I have been doing this for almost exactly 40 years now. I started competing in the ACM events in 1976. It was pretty brutal at the top, with chess 4.x, chaos, duchess, Belle, etc being mature programs. But at the bottom and middle, it was still a fight. Nobody had any advantage over anyone else, and so we all felt as if we could compete and improve. Had someone been able to copy (say) chess 4.x and use it back then, most of us would probably have dropped out as the playing field would have been tipped to the "copy crowd" rather than being equalized, and many would have been discouraged and quit.

Today, new ideas come from amateurs all the time. If they are driven away because it is impossible to compete with a "fresh program" then we all lose something in the bargain.

I think it important that newcomers can write a program, and compete, without having to compete against the same program multiple times in a single tournament. I though Jakarta in 1996 (or 1997) was wrong because it had two copies of Crafty in, mine, and one the University (sponsoring entity) entered. Those two programs finished in either 3rd and 4th or 4th and 5th places. And it didn't seem fair.

I can't speak for others, but for me, that is the issue that causes concern. Simple fairness. Not envy. Not anger. Not anything but wanting to compete fairly with anyone that cares to join in. I have won WCCC and CCT events. I'm still the only two-time (consecutive) WCCC winner in fact. I've won several CCTs. And so have others. And that competition is a lot of fun. It is less fun when you start competing against multiple copies of the same program, or the same professionally-prepared opening book, etc...

[Zach Wegner]

Rumour has it that Fabien transferred the GPL to the FSF, if that's the case, it doesn't matter any more what Fabien says (in a legal sense).

This is true. I was waiting to say something, but it was confirmed by Ryan:

"FSF has full copyright to every line of code in Fruit 2.1"

[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

Actually it doesn't matter from the GPL point of view. Fabien would be the natural person to complain if his code was copied, but if someone else could prove they were "damaged" by this, again assuming it turns out to be what it appears, then they could also have legal recourse, particularly if they are/were commercial and could show that this hurt their sales. So it isn't quite cut and dried...

Hehe! That would be really pushing the envelope of what one could get away with in court. Only yesterday you were posting how dangerous and unlikely it was for legal action on the basis of cost of losing. An action as case as above would be about as speculative as one could get.

[kranium]

Rumour has it that Fabien transferred the GPL to the FSF, if that's the case, it doesn't matter any more what Fabien says (in a legal sense).

This is true. I was waiting to say something, but it was confirmed by Ryan:

"FSF has full copyright to every line of code in Fruit 2.1"

Does this really matter?
Is the FSF less interested in enforcing copyrights than FL?

[Ryan Benitez]

Rumour has it that Fabien transferred the GPL to the FSF, if that's the case, it doesn't matter any more what Fabien says (in a legal sense).

This is true. I was waiting to say something, but it was confirmed by Ryan:

"FSF has full copyright to every line of code in Fruit 2.1"

Does this really matter?
Is the FSF less interested in enforcing copyrights than FL?

The FSF is more capable of enforcing copyrights. This is one of the reasons they now have the copyright.