4th Mini tour 70min 1core started...

[mar]

What do you talking about? AFAIK Houdini is perfectly legal. Even if the Houdini project started from some version of (pulic domain) Robbolito/Ivanhoe, that does not mean that everyone can have a free (pirated) copy of it.

If you think that it is "only an Ippolit", you are free to use the vanilla thing, available from various sites (7261 zillion of different compiles at +-6 elo from each other).

Are you saying that stealing others work and placing it in public domain makes the code clean?

[rvida]

Are you saying that stealing others work and placing it in public domain makes the code clean?

Of course not. But if we are talking about Ippolit, it is not a "stolen work of others".

[Graham Banks]

Are you saying that stealing others work and placing it in public domain makes the code clean?

Of course not. But if we are talking about Ippolit, it is not a "stolen work of others".

Really? Where did it come from and who is responsible for it?

[kranium]

Are you saying that stealing others work and placing it in public domain makes the code clean?

Of course not. But if we are talking about Ippolit, it is not a "stolen work of others".

there are many who disagree Richard-

please see:
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1647

apparently, it matches very closely (exactly), line for line, with a Chesslogik release of RobboLito,
which had the 'world famous' (but meaningless?) FSF GPL license attached.
(it's part of the download and conspicuously included in the header of each source file, so it can't be missed)

but, of course you know this already...,
and i'm sure you have seen all the magical word dancing and pompous denials in face of overwhelming evidence.

so i'm really surprised (and disappointed) to see you defending Houdini, which appears to be anything but an 'original engine',
and which is in fact is illegal according to the terms of the GPL...

(that is of course only if one thinks the GPL license means anything at all)
do you?
(i would have thought you would support such measures to protect against blatant plagiarism)

i remember getting banned from here for 1 year for using GPL source code
(and look, what's happened to Vas?)

then why (or how on earth) is Houdini OK?
because it's strong...he gets an exemption, a free pass?

[kranium]

I can't get my head around THAT concept. A pirated license for a program that is a copy of another program?

What do you talking about? AFAIK Houdini is perfectly legal. Even if the Houdini project started from some version of (pulic domain) Robbolito/Ivanhoe, that does not mean that everyone can have a free (pirated) copy of it.

Herein lies the crux of the issue...
from what source code did 'the Houdini project start' ?
it it becoming increasing clear that it wasn't from a 'public domain' release

there is 'evidence' that it started from my and Sentinels GPL'd releases...(see link above)
http://www.chesslogik.com/robbolito.htm

(we did substantial work on this source code, big improvements...and tried to do the right thing and protect it from abuse)
are our efforts to be simply disregarded....?
because?

a lesson about accountability and forthrightness...was mercilessly drilled home to me by Bob H., and many of the members here...
(i'm still ostracized/villianized to this day, even though i did the right thing, with no lies, smoke-screen, denials, etc.)

why are Vas and Robert H. being excluded from these 'standards'?

[Laskos]

Are you saying that stealing others work and placing it in public domain makes the code clean?

Of course not. But if we are talking about Ippolit, it is not a "stolen work of others".

there are many who disagree Richard-

please see:
http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1647

apparently, it matches very closely (exactly), line for line, with a Chesslogik release of RobboLito,
which had the 'world famous' (but meaningless?) FSF GPL license attached.
(it's part of the download and conspicuously included in the header of each source file, so it can't be missed)

but, of course you know this already...,
and i'm sure you have seen all the magical word dancing and pompous denials in face of overwhelming evidence.

so i'm really surprised (and disappointed) to see you defending Houdini, which appears to be anything but an 'original engine',
and which is in fact is illegal according to the terms of the GPL...

(that is of course only if one thinks the GPL license means anything at all)
do you?
(i would have thought you would support such measures to protect against blatant plagiarism)

i remember getting banned from here for 1 year for using GPL source code
(and look, what's happened to Vas?)

then why (or how on earth) is Houdini OK?
because it's strong...he gets an exemption, a free pass?

Then go and sue R. Houdart, and win the case. Until then, Houdini is a legal commercial engine.

Kai

[Laskos]

Are you saying that stealing others work and placing it in public domain makes the code clean?

Of course not. But if we are talking about Ippolit, it is not a "stolen work of others".

Really? Where did it come from and who is responsible for it?

I am sure in the Southern Hemisphere there are no anonymous works from prehistory to these days, sure not on CCRL.

Kai

[Graham Banks]

Are you saying that stealing others work and placing it in public domain makes the code clean?

Of course not. But if we are talking about Ippolit, it is not a "stolen work of others".

Really? Where did it come from and who is responsible for it?

I am sure in the Southern Hemisphere there are no anonymous works from prehistory to these days, sure not on CCRL.

Kai

CCRL has nothing to do with what I asked, dickhead! Grow up and show some sort of maturity!

[mar]

Of course not. But if we are talking about Ippolit, it is not a "stolen work of others".

I didn't mean to start a flamewar. From a quick look at the original Ippolit code, it looked very artificial. So the first thing that comes up to mind is that it was either based on RE of another engine (as VR originally claimed if my memory serves well) or that it was someone's joke, perhaps releasing it after running the whole thing (which one?) through a preprocessor. I think there are many who would like to know its true origin as neither "theory" explains that. It certainly didn't fall out of the sky. Until then one can't say whether it's "clean" or not. That's why I was asking.

[lucasart]

The games you published above strongly suggest that you are using Houdini 2.0c with a pirate license, resulting in a 150 Elo weaker engine.

Please do not refer to software copyright infringment as "piracy". This word is pure propaganda, and its improper use to the world of copyright is the result of mega-corporations and copyright owners's lobbies and media/population control. Here's what the FSF has to say about it

Code: Select all

Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.)

If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your neighbor.”

Just call it an "illegal copy" of Houdini