Fabien's open letter to the community

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I have searched all posts of Vasik in rybkaforum having the words Fruit or Fabien or contacted or contact or email and none of them had an issue about what are you saying.

If my memory serves me correctly, several posters on this forum have said something to the general effect that 'Fabien does not care what Vas did with Rybka 1, so why should anyone else care?'.

Perhaps this is what Doc. D. is (not correctly) remembering?

Sometimes when I see old newspapers I am surprised at how my memory has confused some of the details -- even when I was confident I was remembering correctly.

No,the author of Shredder has mentioned this information too....
It's hard to have too separate people incorrectly remembering the same thing....
Dr.D

[bob]

The proof is the author of Fruit himself. "Fabien's open letter to the community". And Vas statement that he claimed that Strelka 2.0 is a clone of Rybka 1.0. This linked Fruit code with Rybka code.

Read it again, then. As many times as it needed to register. He says "legally 'there is no issue". Which means no GPL violation, i.e. no copying of code.

Now I understand of course you take Fabien for an idiot, so that you can ignoe what he writes completely, and just want to use the fact that he says anything at all as a good opprtunity to shoot off your mouth aganst those that you dislike.

But I take Fabien kind of seriously. "No copying of code, but a translation of the algorithm".

So 'poof' goes your 'proof'...

I think you are misinterpreting "translation". Certainly if I translate a book from German to English and sell it as my own, I'll run afoul of copyright laws pretty quickly if the English copy sells well.

[Graham Banks]

_Vasik said in an interview and on several occasions in the Rybka forum,where he hides btbw,that he contacted Fabien and the guy simply doesn't care....the author of Shredder has mentioned the same info and I read it today here for the first time so I'm not making things up....a fact.

Wael - it was Stefan Meyer-Kahlen who had an exchange of emails with Fabien. You misread his post. Nobody can find any comment by Vas anywhere that he had contacted Fabien.
I know that you're angry that you feel let down by Vas, but facts are important.

Cheers,
Graham.

[bob]

Why do you then reject latest Ivanhoe versions even if Ippolit were a clone ?

Matthias.

I'd much rather test a new version of Big Lion!

He has a point Graham! If the first version of Rybka IS bogus then they should all be eliminated from your list. OR you do have to add AT LEAST Houdini.

You can't have it both ways!

Please follow that line of thought through.
If he adds Houdini he would also have to add Fire and Ivanhoe and whatnot. Do you seriously want to go down that road? What will happen next week when there are 10 new "original" super strong engines for them to test? Oh goodie.

This is not all black and white unfortunately, the line must be drawn somewhere. If Rybka is a bitboard version of Fruit written from scratch I don't think it can be called a clone or derivative.

I can't parse that. "version of ... written from scratch" does not compute. If it is "a version of" then it is clearly a derivative. If it was written from scratch, it clearly is not "a version of..."

???

One might even imagine that Fruit was converted to bitboard primarily to bypass clone detection and yet at the same time keep its strength.
If so this would be very deceitful indeed but where is the line between copying ideas and copying code.. It has to be drawn somewhere, and if the code is rewritten it makes some sense to draw the line there, obviously YMMV. (Now I'm sure you're hard at work on a mailbox Ippolit..

Also let's keep some perspective here. Copying of ideas is taking place all the time. OpenSource engines have made it possible for any idiot to do it, but there are also other engines on the list, old engines whos authors are so skilled in assembly that they can read the tricks and ideas in closed engines as well.

[George Tsavdaris]

Facts....

_You are trying to make the impression that I am some kind of a VIP person here who can do whatever he wants under the protection of the current moderators.....a lie inspired by the professional lies of the Rybka team.....a fact.

I'm not saying you are a vip. I'm saying that the moderators for some reasons, tolerate you and your stuff....

_You are trying to explain your reactions with the illogical facts you are reading regarding the Rybka affair....a lie because you are arguing only with me when everyone can see that there are a lot of people sharing my opinion and supporting my views hence the logical conclusion that you're unleashed from the Rybka cesspoll to attack their most annoying enemy,me....a fact.

Which are these "lot of people"? I see none.
And BTW some people don't like Rybka that's why they show some kind of understanding on you and your illogical stuff. You have a common "enemy" that's why.

_You recieved a several free copies of Rybka for beta testing and hence became a loyal servant of Vasik who obey orders when his master is insulted ....a fact.

I have received as you and everyone else a copy of the first Rybka 1.0 beta that Vasik gave it to anyone interested. After this? Zero Rybka betas.
So once again what you say is complete crap!

Again of course moderators will let you get away by spreading lies and unfounded accusations about other members(me in this case for the 3rd time).
So from tomorrow i will become a troll like you behaving the same way.

_Vasik didn't release the promised Rybka 3+ and most probably won't release Rybka 4.1 and you still bark for him....a fact.

I could care less about what he will release or not.

_Vasik said in an interview and on several occasions in the Rybka forum,where he hides btbw,that he contacted Fabien and the guy simply doesn't care....the author of Shredder has mentioned the same info and I read it today here for the first time so I'm not making things up....a fact.

Several occasions and an interview and yet you failed to provide the facts. And yet you define it as a fact. This is not just trolling it's more than that.

_You are threating to leave the forum....well....I don't think that anyone is gonna miss you so please do proceed....a fact.

I will not proceed. I will not make your life, of polluting this forum with illogical and baseless things, easy.

[Chan Rasjid]

If re-writing should be considered cloning is not a matter of law, but of opinion. Like I stated before, I consider all existing engines clones of Shannon's work. But what good does that insight do me?

We are not talking about law, we are talking about the gpl and license agrements.

If you take the source code of Fruit, change it until every line is changed, the new program is still under gpl protection. Publishing it without sources and GPL license is illegal. Hard to pinch but illegal. Is this so hard to understand? When will you finally accept that?

Reading the Fruit sources, build your own engine with the ideas is fine. Using other common ideas is fine. Copying one single line out of Fruit is violating the gpl.

Your shannon clone case is misplaced. Your way of argument is rude. Noone here ever said that it is illegal to take ideas from GPL'ed code. Thats what you always try to imply. I am really sick of this kind of discussions.

I read HG Muller's earlier comment and I think he is about right that a re-write (eg. Strelka need not be GPL'ed) is legal and there is no GPL violation (Robert Houdart hinted at a slight amount of re-write of Ippolit, still an original work).

GPL covers 'modified work' or 'based on' another work. Expert opinions from the internet says the 'correct' interpretation is 'cut-and-paste' all or part. So Rybka can only be illegal if he did copy_and_paste, otherwise it is legal - he did not tell.

Rasjid.

[Christopher Conkie]

If re-writing should be considered cloning is not a matter of law, but of opinion. Like I stated before, I consider all existing engines clones of Shannon's work. But what good does that insight do me?

We are not talking about law, we are talking about the gpl and license agrements.

If you take the source code of Fruit, change it until every line is changed, the new program is still under gpl protection. Publishing it without sources and GPL license is illegal. Hard to pinch but illegal. Is this so hard to understand? When will you finally accept that?

Reading the Fruit sources, build your own engine with the ideas is fine. Using other common ideas is fine. Copying one single line out of Fruit is violating the gpl.

Your shannon clone case is misplaced. Your way of argument is rude. Noone here ever said that it is illegal to take ideas from GPL'ed code. Thats what you always try to imply. I am really sick of this kind of discussions.

I read HG Muller's earlier comment and I think he is about right that a re-write (eg. Strelka need not be GPL'ed) is legal and there is no GPL violation (Robert Houdart hinted at a slight amount of re-write of Ippolit, still an original work).

GPL covers 'modified work' or 'based on' another work. Expert opinions from the internet says the 'correct' interpretation is 'cut-and-paste' all or part. So Rybka can only be illegal if he did copy_and_paste, otherwise it is legal - he did not tell.

Rasjid.

And so what will you do? (and I don't mean you specifically Chan), I mean you or anybody else? I for one will continue to use Fabian's Go programs if that's helpful?

Where will you "go"? (As Mr Berliner once told me)



Chris

[Chan Rasjid]

The proof is the author of Fruit himself. "Fabien's open letter to the community". And Vas statement that he claimed that Strelka 2.0 is a clone of Rybka 1.0. This linked Fruit code with Rybka code.

Read it again, then. As many times as it needed to register. He says "legally 'there is no issue". Which means no GPL violation, i.e. no copying of code.

Now I understand of course you take Fabien for an idiot, so that you can ignoe what he writes completely, and just want to use the fact that he says anything at all as a good opprtunity to shoot off your mouth aganst those that you dislike.

But I take Fabien kind of seriously. "No copying of code, but a translation of the algorithm".

So 'poof' goes your 'proof'...

I think you are misinterpreting "translation". Certainly if I translate a book from German to English and sell it as my own, I'll run afoul of copyright laws pretty quickly if the English copy sells well.

This is where most are wrong and HGM right.

The idea of 'derived work' has never been tested yet in any court (internet). Most legal/technical experts interpret 'derived work' in GPL to only include 'copy and paste'. The notions about derived work accepted in general copyright laws do not apply in GPL.

Rasjid

[Steve B]

Speaking of view totals
this thread here in the CCC has 26929 views as i write
the same exact thread was posted in another forum at about the same time and it has a paltry 931 views as i write
now that's nearly a 30:1 ratio

this of course has nothing to do with the topic of the thread but i thought a bit of healthy chest pounding and struting ones stuff was in order

The Major leagues Regards
Steve

Hello Steve,



Later.

View total ratios for the Major leagues V the Minor leagues(Single A ball) is now 31:1..as i write

50171/1610

You Cant Touch This Regards
Steve

[Laskos]

Thanks for the quick response, Kai.

I've gotten that result with Strelka 2.0 and Rybka 1.0 Beta 2 several
times. That's why I believe Beta 2 may actually be a Conkie joke; it
may actually be Strelka.

I am also using sim03.exe. Also, I am using a diverse group of engines.
I only posted the results that were relevant to my question. It is part of
a preliminary set of tests that I have been running. I hope to present my
data in the near future.

Hi Adam, I am back here for a short time.
The measure in my case is normalized Euclidian. The average linkage distance between clusters s_i and s_j is
1/Norm(s_i)/Norm(s_j) * Sum(k) Sum(l) [distance(s_ik, s_jl)].

Good luck with your tests, maybe I find time to look at Beta 2, you made me curious.

Kai