Vas taken to the Popular Court, again?

[mclane]

I can't believe you are still talking about Vas, Rybka, clones, things and stuff. You made a mess of the whole RGCC newsgroup because of your long, useless posts. You kept attacking people and Ed Schroeder even sued you at that time. Why don't you pack your stuff and leave us alone?

sometimes in life the EASY solutions do not come to our mind and we prefer more complex "solutions"

I guess it is easy to throw with the finger on others if you want to make forget about the past.

[Rolf]

What, exactly, have I written? I simply responded to a poor analogy you offered and tried to explain why it was wrong. What I saw when this investigation started was both troubling and surprising. What I have heard since is more troubling. But I am waiting and I didn't initiate the current thread, nor did Zach. It would seem that some like to keep the pot stirred, for whatever reasons they may have.

You know well what Chris THeron has written and still you buddied. That was prejudice but not judgement.

I didnt open the thread either but it was time that someone asked after your evidence or case.

Could you describe how the future plan is for the making of the case?

1) Do you just want to hold open the campaign to have something against Vas in the air?

2) With the next data for a full case will you alarm the institutions of justice? Advantage you could then stop communicating here because of the case...

3) Will you publish something just to show that you assumptions were justified?

4) What should be done with R2 or R3 when you have a "case" against R1betafreeversion?

5) What could we expect if Zach has meaningless data? Could you apologize?

I'll only respond to the last question. I see nothing I should apologize for. I stated my opinion, that based on what I have seen to date, there is a _strong_ probability that R1 was copied, in major chunks if not the complete program, from Fruit, and then modified in some ways. If you want to hand-wave what has been shown away, that's your freedom of choice at work. But duplicate blocks of code simply does not happen by chance. Duplicate pc/sq table values do no happen by chance. Etc.

that's all there is to it, really. The fact that he probably copied something before he modified it to become something much better is interesting, but not a form of absolution for the original copying. That's been the point. If it were my investigation, I would not be interested in "judicial action". I would only want to discover the truth and expose it, and then move on. But it is not my investigation, I am on the outside looking in just as you are. I'm only interested in discovering the truth. I see nothing to be gained by legal action following.

Dont you realise how ridiculous your reasoning comes along?

You give this: "on the base what I have seen". You also gave
"I didnt research it myself." That is for university man very damaging stuff. I mean, you let yourself show something and then make your mind up? How odd this is!

Therefore I asked in question 4 if Zach adds contain meaningless data, what then? And you basicall say, that is the logic in what you say and this is objective and you cannot filibuster this away. You say that what you have seen is already enough for your verdict so that it's unimportant what Zach will show.

But you dont conclude the easiest logical conclusion here that for debating a free engine, a present, that contains two parts mainly:


A Inspired stuff from Fruit
B Inspired stuff from the new genius you dislike so much

All what that was meant for is that someone wanted to see if his B were good enough.

And you with Theron (programmer of a program that also contains copied stuff and still was sold!!!!!!!!!) begin here a smear campaign and hold it open for almost two years now without that you had even imagined what could maximally come out of your survey. This is laughable.

1) You as university professor didnt research it yourself but bought all from Theron like in similar cases before, you looked at data from others
(dont you realise that this is second best?)

2) You oversee that you are talking about a free program that nobody was allowed to rip into pieces.

3) By making a case against a free engine on the base of illegally made data, that you havent researched yourself, you dare to make a case against a new genial programmer who sucks in your Crafty on whom you've worked for almost a decade, which inall shows that this bad sportsmanship nothing else. Not only that but wwith his present he already stood at the top of all rating lists, also leaving behind all commercials, in special Therons baby.

4) As Fernando made clear, if in a creative field you want to destroy a new product that is directly the best, and that contains to begin with out of time reasons partly older code in uninteresting tech, but the main chess part that makes the new difference to ALL others is totally new stuff, then you want to kill genial new performances and you will fail. Also because the community will show indignation because it looks odd.

I know well why Theron remain invisible now. And why Norman has no interest in the debate. And why Zach is the only one who say he is still researching. That is because Zach is the youngest and American and has nothing to lose if Vas should be pleased to strike back on judicial grounds some sunny day.

Isi Gerd has explained to me that he needed 200 days to make a case against R1 -- R1 that is a present and a free engine for all. And you as professer are incapable of seeing the difference to a typical clone case????

That is unbelievable and is a scandal in modern computerchess.

Also, psychologically it's still a smear campaign because the only what could come out of that activity, that is the spitting on Vasik's good name.
That will hurt the reputation of our complete field. This is why it's so damaging. Not really IMO for Vas. People arent that stupid. At least not in our community. But if the business should be hurt I could well foresee that some will have to pay a higher price for their wrongdoing.

[sockmonkey]

This has nothing to do with audacity, impoliteness, bad sportsmanship or whatever else, but with the fact that the GNU GPL requires that derivative works (works which either include the source or contain modified versions of it) also be released as Open Source under the GNU GPL license.

If Rybka's source is derived from Fruit's, then it was improperly released as a closed-source non-GPL project. It's quite simple. Rybka's achievement (and Vas's considerable skill) are actually totally beside the point.

I have seen no information one way or the other, and I probably won't stop using Rybka, whatever the results of the 'investigation'. But it's not unreasonable, rude or wrong to want to know the facts.

Jeremy

[Rolf]

This has nothing to do with audacity, impoliteness, bad sportsmanship or whatever else, but with the fact that the GNU GPL requires that derivative works (works which either include the source or contain modified versions of it) also be released as Open Source under the GNU GPL license.

If Rybka's source is derived from Fruit's, then it was improperly released as a closed-source non-GPL project. It's quite simple. Rybka's achievement (and Vas's considerable skill) are actually totally beside the point.

I have seen no information one way or the other, and I probably won't stop using Rybka, whatever the results of the 'investigation'. But it's not unreasonable, rude or wrong to want to know the facts.

Jeremy

Nonsense! Notghing has been released. Under judicial terms.

It was a present for a community that was so happy to finally have a wonderful new chess prodigy as a free engine. That wasnt sold or anything.

The necessary has been declarated and that's it.

We are no beancounters. This is a genial performance and nobody has the right to smear this with formal or secondary suppositions.

What strikes me is the naivety of the claim it's a copy, talking about R1, but it was already stronger than ALL others. I mean, this is basic math or basic logic, you just count two and two together and you see that it cant be a copy. Right? Other questions?

Also the present was privately distributed to emailing interested! Your serve now.

[sockmonkey]

Sorry, but a release is a release, and you're just splitting hairs. If you can't see past your fandom to the deeper issues of intellectual property protection and the (possible) breach of license, trust and respect inherent in disregarding an open-source software license, we're simply not having the same discussion.

And no one is claiming that it's a copy, but rather a derivative work. Which could be quite far developed from the original source. If the original source was used in the creation of the derivative work, that work must be released under the GPL, according to the terms of the GPL.

Jeremy

[kiroje]

What strikes me is the naivety of the claim it's a copy, talking about R1, but it was already stronger than ALL others. I mean, this is basic math or basic logic, you just count two and two together and you see that it cant be a copy. Right? Other questions?

Just because its stronger than Fruit doesnt mean it isnt Fruit, It could be that Fruit didnt have the optimal settings for different evalution parameters and some much better values where found.

If that was the case and the new version was significantly better, wouldnt it still be Fruit then ?

(It should be noted I havent taken any sides in this case and just wanted to know where you stand Rolf)

[Rolf]

Sorry, but a release is a release, and you're just splitting hairs. If you can't see past your fandom to the deeper issues of intellectual property protection and the (possible) breach of license, trust and respect inherent in disregarding an open-source software license, we're simply not having the same discussion.

And no one is claiming that it's a copy, but rather a derivative work. Which could be quite far developed from the original source. If the original source was used in the creation of the derivative work, that work must be released under the GPL, according to the terms of the GPL.

Jeremy

For all if we have in the Fruit author already someone like a saint who just gives away his sensational creation and who later never complained when shown R1. We have surely a different debate but I claim that it's not me splitting hairs but all the Vas critics. Again, please get real! It was a present, given via email to people who wrote they wanted to have it too. That was emailed for I remember one single day. All that GPL stuff is fine but not for such a case.

Ok, it exists and then? What would you do in a court room? You just dont have a case. Therefore the continual "debating" of anotherone's wrongdoing which isnt relevant at all, is a smear campaign.

Note that I write under my real name.

[sockmonkey]

Sorry, but a release is a release, and you're just splitting hairs. If you can't see past your fandom to the deeper issues of intellectual property protection and the (possible) breach of license, trust and respect inherent in disregarding an open-source software license, we're simply not having the same discussion.

And no one is claiming that it's a copy, but rather a derivative work. Which could be quite far developed from the original source. If the original source was used in the creation of the derivative work, that work must be released under the GPL, according to the terms of the GPL.

Jeremy

For all if we have in the Fruit author already someone like a saint who just gives away his sensational creation and who later never complained when shown R1. We have surely a different debate but I claim that it's not me splitting hairs but all the Vas critics. Again, please get real! It was a present, given via email to people who wrote they wanted to have it too. That was emailed for I remember one single day. All that GPL stuff is fine but not for such a case.

Ok, it exists and then? What would you do in a court room? You just dont have a case. Therefore the continual "debating" of anotherone's wrongdoing which isnt relevant at all, is a smear campaign.

Note that I write under my real name.

My name is Jeremy Bernstein and you can see it to the left of my posts. I don't really know what your point is, Rolf.

This has nothing to do with court battles. It has to do with, as I wrote, respect and trust. When I release software as open source under a particular license, coders who disregard that license demonstrate a shocking lack of consideration for the hard work and research I've invested in that project, and chosen to make available for the benefit of my fellow travellers in the coding world.

The requirement that derivative projects be released as open source themselves is political, and attempts to expand the amount of available knowledge. If you benefit from open knowledge, you should give back what you've learned with interest.

If Rybka had existed as a one-time free email release and disappeared, no one would care, but the fact that the code a) remained closed and b) was further developed into a (successful) for-profit project is troubling, if the original work is derived from Fruit.

I'll stress -- I have no information one way or the other and I am certainly willing to give Vas the benefit of the doubt. But your claims that no one has the right to be concerned about these issues because of the supposed generosity of the people involved is completely missing the point.

Jeremy

[Rolf]

What strikes me is the naivety of the claim it's a copy, talking about R1, but it was already stronger than ALL others. I mean, this is basic math or basic logic, you just count two and two together and you see that it cant be a copy. Right? Other questions?

Just because its stronger than Fruit doesnt mean it isnt Fruit, It could be that Fruit didnt have the optimal settings for different evalution parameters and some much better values where found.

If that was the case and the new version was significantly better, wouldnt it still be Fruit then ?

(It should be noted I havent taken any sides in this case and just wanted to know where you stand Rolf)

You permit a little joke? Well, with all the changes, still basically, I'm standing on the grave of Abel accusing Cain of murder or at least slaughter and I want to defend a genius like Vas today. Alhough part of me is also directed from a lizard's brain.

Note, we dont talk about stupid people and shouldnt split hairs. Vas has created his own thing and all what he had to say was in the notes. Well, more or less.

Now others could do the same, but they shouldnt take Rybka because that is not given away like Fruit. That's the difference. Alas, we dont have many creative programmers. Although from my perspective all of the many hundreds of amateurs are already on top of my talents and I admire all. Except those who have now entered politics or justice. Or character assassination. I'm not aiming at you of course.

[kiroje]

You permit a little joke? Well, with all the changes, still basically, I'm standing on the grave of Abel accusing Cain of murder or at least slaughter and I want to defend a genius like Vas today. Alhough part of me is also directed from a lizard's brain.

Note, we dont talk about stupid people and shouldnt split hairs. Vas has created his own thing and all what he had to say was in the notes. Well, more or less.

Now others could do the same, but they shouldnt take Rybka because that is not given away like Fruit. That's the difference. Alas, we dont have many creative programmers. Although from my perspective all of the many hundreds of amateurs are already on top of my talents and I admire all. Except those who have now entered politics or justice. Or character assassination. I'm not aiming at you of course.

I still dont get an answer to the question

If someone took Fruit and just found some better parameters that make it better is it not still not Fruit ?

And as a sidenote the sentence

Now others could do the same, but they shouldnt take Rybka because that is not given away like Fruit.

For me shows you dont get that Fruit wasnt "given away" it was made public with some CONDITIONS - very big difference