trojanfoe wrote:Sounds to me Rolf that you are happy to concede that Rybka does indeed contain source code from a GPL'd engine, and you are now just arguing that the terms of the GPL don't count because of one or more of the following:
1) It was given away free.
2) It was distributed via e-mail.
3) It is the best engine.
4) Previous engines didn't have this level of discussion, WRT being copied.
5) Vas is a genius and a very nice bloke.
None of that counts Rolf, much as you'd like it to.
Not at all. I add the point
x) because nobody in this area has the key to define what must 'count' for other people's private business. Nobody here around has the power to just speak why others must condemn other people's private affairs. In total that means the times of Grandmasters of Exorcism are over although always there will be people who virtually like to play that role or also in the Roman Catholic Church we still have that sort of tortures.
Let me find a door for both of us to find a compromise.
Nothing of what you said does count is imperial speech. This is not a conversation like it should happen here. Nobody here has the right to tell others that what they said is zero. Because even if it's objectively false the general climate here should better ask for explanations why something should be false. IMO a debate should allow that also the considerations of the other party should find respect. As positions and not just nonsense because coming from alleged lays.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
Rolf wrote:Like Kim you also belong to the logical either or camp. Which is wrong in this case IMO.
Please dont put me into a category, i just wanted to know if you thought it was alright to neglect GPL
Thanks
But I already answered this. In case of such funny presents you cant speak of violations of anything at all. It was private. And look how the many critics are now examining the code of R1beta just to find what? That is where I see Bob in a hole. He should tell them with months retardation: hey guys stop it, end the war, I forgot that Vas just distributed this thing as a private present. Thanks Rolf, let's be friends again, you are a great mediator. Signed Bob.
Bill Rogers wrote:Can anyone answer this truthfully? Vas indicated that he looked as the Fruit code when he first made Rybka 1. I don't ever remember him saying that he used that code in Rybka 2 or 3. So far no one has shown any positive proof that he did or maybe I missed it somewhere. If there has been some positive proof then lets see it once and for all.
I am not talking about the man who stated that he had disassemble Rybka showed his proof only to be confronted that he, himself renamed most of the code that he published.
I have followed the arguments about Rybka from the beggining and am still waiting for the good proofs.
Bill
I support exactly this position against all what Bob or now also Andy are telling us. They completely miss the truth that you must prove a thesis directly and not indirectly by saying but this was always the tech of a procedure. So we can well assume that Vas did the same. That isnt a proof that is exorcism.
By stating that I havnt said at all that it's already clear that never there will be a proof of something that could be criticised in this case. But until now everything wasnt a proof at all. Of course we are now forced to examine exactly this topic in connection with Vasik either until his older age which means for the next 40 years at least also because we or at least the four musquetiers have nothing else to do in life, for all no chess programming. Life has become prosecution of peers. It appears to be so IMO.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
Rolf wrote:Like Kim you also belong to the logical either or camp. Which is wrong in this case IMO.
Please dont put me into a category, i just wanted to know if you thought it was alright to neglect GPL
Thanks
But I already answered this. In case of such funny presents you cant speak of violations of anything at all. It was private. And look how the many critics are now examining the code of R1beta just to find what? That is where I see Bob in a hole. He should tell them with months retardation: hey guys stop it, end the war, I forgot that Vas just distributed this thing as a private present. Thanks Rolf, let's be friends again, you are a great mediator. Signed Bob.
pedrox wrote:Is that the topic where is said that there is a new version of Strelka?
Yes. Yuri made the new version available and claimed that it contains the evaluation of latest Rybka and search of Strelka 2.
?? No, the post in question was one deleted from the other current Rybka thread. Terry's post itself wasn't deleted, but a branch of the topic got moved due to a complaint.
pedrox wrote:Is that the topic where is said that there is a new version of Strelka?
Yes. Yuri made the new version available and claimed that it contains the evaluation of latest Rybka and search of Strelka 2.
?? No, the post in question was one deleted from the other current Rybka thread. Terry's post itself wasn't deleted, but a branch of the topic got moved due to a complaint.
pedrox wrote:Is that the topic where is said that there is a new version of Strelka?
Yes. Yuri made the new version available and claimed that it contains the evaluation of latest Rybka and search of Strelka 2.
?? No, the post in question was one deleted from the other current Rybka thread. Terry's post itself wasn't deleted, but a branch of the topic got moved due to a complaint.
What kind of complaint would justify removing such a post? It is hardly unethical to carefully examine a program's binary, decode what it is doing, and then publish the details. It would be unethical to do so and then claim the decoded stuff was your own work, but he didn't do this...
trojanfoe wrote:Sounds to me Rolf that you are happy to concede that Rybka does indeed contain source code from a GPL'd engine, and you are now just arguing that the terms of the GPL don't count because of one or more of the following:
1) It was given away free.
2) It was distributed via e-mail.
3) It is the best engine.
4) Previous engines didn't have this level of discussion, WRT being copied.
5) Vas is a genius and a very nice bloke.
None of that counts Rolf, much as you'd like it to.
Not at all. I add the point
x) because nobody in this area has the key to define what must 'count' for other people's private business. Nobody here around has the power to just speak why others must condemn other people's private affairs. In total that means the times of Grandmasters of Exorcism are over although always there will be people who virtually like to play that role or also in the Roman Catholic Church we still have that sort of tortures.
Let me find a door for both of us to find a compromise.
Nothing of what you said does count is imperial speech. This is not a conversation like it should happen here. Nobody here has the right to tell others that what they said is zero. Because even if it's objectively false the general climate here should better ask for explanations why something should be false. IMO a debate should allow that also the considerations of the other party should find respect. As positions and not just nonsense because coming from alleged lays.
If you copy someone's code, or someone's writings, it is not a "private affair" as much as you seem to want it to be. If you have a law that says "thou shall not kill" and you kill someone in a private part of your house, did you break the law?
This is cut and dried. Regardless of your continual rantings to the contrary.
All he did was publish a link to download the engine, which could easily be considered an illegal clone. At best, it is of "questionable legal status", per charter point 5. Anyways, Jury tells me that he isn't going to release any secrets or source from Rybka 3, so I suppose Vas has nothing to worry about...
pedrox wrote:Is that the topic where is said that there is a new version of Strelka?
Yes. Yuri made the new version available and claimed that it contains the evaluation of latest Rybka and search of Strelka 2.
?? No, the post in question was one deleted from the other current Rybka thread. Terry's post itself wasn't deleted, but a branch of the topic got moved due to a complaint.
What kind of complaint would justify removing such a post? It is hardly unethical to carefully examine a program's binary, decode what it is doing, and then publish the details. It would be unethical to do so and then claim the decoded stuff was your own work, but he didn't do this...
Nope, this is not only not hardly but totally criminal.
You cant take a commercial program, analyse and rip it and then do it in your own stuff and publish it. I know what you want to reach but it wont function. He wont react on such a crap from your side.
It's copyrighted program R3 and nobody has the right to publish its internals. Understood? And now apologize.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
