Fabien's open letter to the community

[Robert Flesher]

The whole Rybka team and their hardcore supporters must be banned from the the honest circle of the computer ches community....
I'm really glad that I was behind the right side of the fence all this time
Dr.D

Dr.D, maybe the "hardcore supporters" are just good people that like Rybka as a nice tool, regardless of its dubious origin (the tone of your posts reminds me a show satirizing a terrorist: "Infidels, I kill you!"). They can change their mind. This is not a messianic mission with sides to stand.
Why not just try to discuss in a civilized manner and with good arguments?

Regards,

After all these years of lies and unjustified financial benifits I don't think a civilized manners have a place here,not to mention the huge unrespect and ignorance toward the customers and fans of Rybka....The snake's head must be cut off ASAP....
Even is a chess game,if you have the opportunity to stear your opponent to a crumpled position,would you keep a civilized manner in terms of play
Don't think so regards,
Dr.D

Hello Herr Dr. !

Nice or not ?



Au revoir mon ami !

S

Funny stuff!

[George Tsavdaris]

First thing came to my thoughts after reading the article is a huge lie Vasik was spreading through all these years....that he,Vasik,contacted Fabien regarding the fruit-Rybka affair and Fabien is fine with it and even doesn't care which as I wrote turned out to be a huge lie....
Dr.D

I confirm: no contact with Vasik.
I would like to have a pointer too.

Thanks,

Fabien.

And thanks from my side Fabien....

He didn't thank you for anything you said(in case you misunderstood it).
He just meant it like a "Thanks in advance" way.

And he is thanking you in advance, since he(Fabien) is interested in seeing the original statement of Vasik that you have told us in your previous post that he said in the past, that is:
"First thing came to my thoughts after reading the article is a huge lie Vasik was spreading through all these years....that he,Vasik,contacted Fabien regarding the fruit-Rybka affair and Fabien is fine with it and even doesn't care "

So can you give as a link to his original statement(s) saying that?
•Peter(Skinner) wanted a reference for this.
•Fabien later wanted also a reference about this.
I would like to see it also.

Can you provide it? Simple as that.
And it can be easy to find since you said that he had been spreading it all these years. Constantly i guess, in many public boards.

So? Any reference?
As they say: Link or it didn't happen.

[Sven]

If it is a GPL violation follows from examining the Fruit code and the Rybka binary. Fabien's opinion on this is completely irrelevant. Justice in this world is done by facts, not by opinions of people who are considered important or respected. And legal action can only be taken by the FSF, as they own the copyrights, and Fabien is no longer an interested party.

As I pointed out before in this thread, http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=389878, although his opinion does not change the facts, in reality Fabiens opinion certainly matters for what can happen.

Even in court, there is such a thing as expert testimony.

But Fabien _has not_ given his opinion so far. Instead he has told us that he is lacking 5 years of information about what's going on in CC. So we can conclude that he is still in the middle of finding his opinion while trying to separate the wheat from the chaff within tens of thousands of threads.

Those people who are trying to tell us now what Fabien has said (although he did not say much yet) or what his opinion is should be more patient for a while, and should also assume that others are able to read.

EDIT: Gian-Carlo, sorry for using your post for my reply. I did not intend to disagree to you, I only took the opportunity of someone mentioning the keyword "Fabien's opinion" in this context

Sven

[hgm]

I find your prejudice and intellectual dishonesty extremely irritating, please join the Rybka forum.

Hello De Vos,

Other persons may find other things extremely irritating about your presentations but I say that you should stay right here.



Later.

Actually I consider any dislike / rejection / attack I get from him as the best compliment a person can get, as for me he is the personification of evil, maliciousness and moral corruption on this forum. So anything that upsets or irritates him must be good and noble.

[wims]

Decompiling / disassembling is NOT consdered re-writing or translating. It is considered equivalent to copying to another medium....

There is no way of knowing wether or not the code has its origin in a decompile or if its a rewrite. Its possible to write code that looks exactly like a decompile. If decompiling produces the exact same output as rewriting it then you need to explain why decompiling is cloning while rewriting is not. Both are clearly cloning in my opinion, both are at least derivatives

[hgm]

Even in court, there is such a thing as expert testimony.

Sure, but the consulted experts are usually not the parties involved in the dispute. They would have zero credibility if they were. If FSF would go to court calling Fabien to the stand for testifying that Rybka code and Fruit code is the same would be the most damagng thing to their case they could do. They would call people like Dan or Bob to the stand.

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

Decompiling / disassembling is NOT consdered re-writing or translating. It is considered equivalent to copying to another medium....

There is no way of knowing wether or not the code has its origin in a decompile or if its a rewrite. Its possible to write code that looks exactly like a decompile. If decompiling produces the exact same output as rewriting it then you need to explain why decompiling is cloning while rewriting is not. Both are clearly cloning in my opinion, both are at least derivatives

If your rewrite turns into code that looks exactly like a decompile, you won't be able to prove in court that it is a rewrite, and it's going to turn into a discussion about whether an independent implementation is likely to turn out as similar as yours did.

That is the whole Ippolit is legal/illegal discussion, in the end.

[hgm]

There is no way of knowing wether or not the code has its origin in a decompile or if its a rewrite. Its possible to write code that looks exactly like a decompile.

Indeed. Like it is possible to write code that looks exactly like the original. But it would be a bit stupid to do either of that, as it would be a way to make sure the original copyrights still apply to it. The mechanism by which you actually produce the copy is irrelevant. What is relevant is how much it looks like the original.

If decompiling produces the exact same output as rewriting it then you need to explain why decompiling is cloning while rewriting is not. Both are clearly cloning in my opinion, both are at least derivatives

By 'output' you mean here 'moves it makes', as opposed to the binary output from the compiler? This has been a well-fought battle in the software industry. If I write an operating system that requires exactly the same input as Unix, and gives us the same output on it, would it be a violation of the AT&T copyrights on it? The answer is an unequivocal 'no'. Hence we have Linux...

[hgm]

Even in court, there is such a thing as expert testimony.

Wrong person. The quote is from GCP.

Oops! Wrongly edited it. Bt I was still in time to fix it, thanks to your warning.

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

Even in court, there is such a thing as expert testimony.

Sure, but the consulted experts are usually not the parties involved in the dispute.

I didn't mean to imply that, though that might not have been clear.

I was saying that for the FSF, to decide whether to go to court or not, I would expect Fabien's opinion to matter. His opinion does not change the facts, but it will affect the actions of the parties.

You're claiming Fabien's opinion is irrelevant. That is true for the facts, but not for the actions!