Goodbye Talkchess

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

- the amount of Fruit code that is said to be involved in "reuse" is so small compared to the overall program size, and so relatively unimportant, that it can never be viewed as being a substantial part of Fruit, so even according to the GPL it would not be sufficient to call Rybka 1.0 beta a "derived work" - all under the assumption that the presented evidence were fully correct, which I still doubt in many parts;

- the Fruit author has not taken any action on that area for years, although he definitely knows the facts.

Sven

On the basis now I would never more respect Bob as a neutral scientist who has only interest in the truth, Zach neither. The last mentioned is insofar a joke because he didnt adopt a small parts of Zappa but he works now with the whole program but that doesnt stink, if something stinks in the eyes/nose of the two overasked persons, it's only Vas with his Rybka. And therefore they think it's ethically sober to cooperate with invisible jerks who are stealing codes, in other words cloners. If computerchess has a chance to survive in honesty it's because honest people like you exist. Thanks from my more or less observer position. All the best to you.

Are you accusing Zach of cooperating with the cloners to improve Zappa
So anyone who may surpass Vasik in the race track of the computer chess world is a cloner,cheater
You're pathetic and legal actions should be taken upon you in my opinion....

[Rolf]

I would guess he meant to say "a Christian" -- not imply that Bob views himself as "a Christ."

Thanks for giving correction. The latter wouldnt make sense at all.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I would guess he meant to say "a Christian" -- not imply that Bob views himself as "a Christ."

Thanks for giving correction. The latter wouldnt make sense at all.

Don't worry,we're used to your senseless statements anyway....
Your latest creation was to accuse Zach of suspecious relationships with the so called ippo cloners to improve Zappa....that was brilliant I have to admit....

[Rolf]

So anyone who may surpass Vasik in the race track of the computer chess world is a cloner,cheater
You're pathetic and legal actions should be taken upon you in my opinion....

Let's stay in the real non-criminal world because here nobody could and will ever "surpass" Vas, because Vas is simply the best. Even the invisible hippo jerks were never better, they looked like that for shortest TC. Yes, "Norman S." is a cloner, insofar illegal and criminal.

[benstoker]

So anyone who may surpass Vasik in the race track of the computer chess world is a cloner,cheater
You're pathetic and legal actions should be taken upon you in my opinion....

Let's stay in the real non-criminal world because here nobody could and will ever "surpass" Vas, because Vas is simply the best. Even the invisible hippo jerks were never better, they looked like that for shortest TC. Yes, "Norman S." is a cloner, insofar illegal and criminal.

Intoxicated on the vapors issuing from the Vas personality cult ...

[Sam Hull]

... without any need to bury references in a non-public place. That has obviously changed. For the worse, I might add.

Removing links is stupid. It doesn't change a thing.

The whole board was "buried in a non-public place" in the good old days, if you recall.

Removing links to warez, cracked software, and other illegal and questionable downloads may be "stupid" to you, but it seems pretty silly to allow such links while banning blatant promotion of legitimate software, which as you know is an explicit part of the charter.

The debate centers on where to draw the line - which is ultimately a question for duly elected mods to decide.

-Sam-

[benstoker]

... without any need to bury references in a non-public place. That has obviously changed. For the worse, I might add.

Removing links is stupid. It doesn't change a thing.

The whole board was "buried in a non-public place" in the good old days, if you recall.

Removing links to warez, cracked software, and other illegal and questionable downloads may be "stupid" to you, but it seems pretty silly to allow such links while banning blatant promotion of legitimate software, which as you know is an explicit part of the charter.

The debate centers on where to draw the line - which is ultimately a question for duly elected mods to decide.

-Sam-

No. You are quite wrong. The question is not reserved exclusively for the mods to decide. Each and every individual is free to draw that line, as you call it. If one wishes to participate in a forum free of censorship line-drawing debates and secret society sub-forums, he now has an alternative.

[Sam Hull]

No. You are quite wrong. The question is not reserved exclusively for the mods to decide. Each and every individual is free to draw that line, as you call it. If one wishes to participate in a forum free of censorship line-drawing debates and secret society sub-forums, he now has an alternative.

Vaya con Dios.


-Sam-

[benstoker]

No. You are quite wrong. The question is not reserved exclusively for the mods to decide. Each and every individual is free to draw that line, as you call it. If one wishes to participate in a forum free of censorship line-drawing debates and secret society sub-forums, he now has an alternative.

Vaya con Dios.


-Sam-

I suppose this means I am about to be censored and banned from this forum. In case this is my last post before execution, live long and prosper.

[bob]

... without any need to bury references in a non-public place. That has obviously changed. For the worse, I might add.

Removing links is stupid. It doesn't change a thing.

The whole board was "buried in a non-public place" in the good old days, if you recall.

I don't "recall" so am not sure what you mean.

Removing links to warez, cracked software, and other illegal and questionable downloads may be "stupid" to you, but it seems pretty silly to allow such links while banning blatant promotion of legitimate software, which as you know is an explicit part of the charter.

Again, do not put words in my mouth. Delete all the Warez-type links you want, doesn't bother me a bit. But when you get to "questionable" then things are a lot less clear, and there is a much greater chance of making a serious mistake. Do you have any _direct_ evidence that IP* and friends are illegal? "I think" and "it must be" are simply not good enough. We have those kinds of things pop up at most every CCT/ICGA/etc event held. But it takes actual physical evidence to make any headway. And so far, all we have for IP* is that the code _appears_ to be reverse-engineered. From what is unknown.

While the circumstances are different, we used to have a few very ugly FORTRAN functions in Cray Blitz. We converted time-critical code to assembly, then a few years later we decided we wanted a pure FORTRAN version so that we could debug and test on machines other than the Cray. So we took the assembly code, which had been _highly_ optimized, and reconstructed FORTRAN from it. Looked ugly. Was ugly. But it served its purpose. And it wasn't a clone of _anything_.

You talk as if the jury is in, and the verdict was unanimous with regard to IP* and friends. But I have not even seen an arraignment hearing yet, much less a trial. We have one statement claiming it is a clone, with nothing to support it. If we convict based on that, then hardly anybody will have a legal program, anybody can pipe up and say "that's my code" and offer nothing more. Not reasonable.

The debate centers on where to draw the line - which is ultimately a question for duly elected mods to decide.

I do not agree. First, many of the moderators (certainly the current case) have no technical expertise to make such a determination. We _should_ hold those discussions here, in an open forum, and eventually reach a conclusion if data is presented, or take no action if none is given. I'd no more hand over my healthcare treatment to moderators that don't have an MD in their list of titles. The idea that the moderators get to make this kind of decision is _not_ what the CCC charter is all about. Moderators are supposed to deal with personal attacks, and clearly illegal posts. Not serve as both judge and jury to determine what is legal or not and then execute the guilty on sight.

-Sam-