HGM totally missed seeing that.JuLieN wrote:@HGM
Allow me to be a bit parodic, and don't take it bad.
It is really remarkable how everyone tries to twist facts to confirm their own point of view. Are they unable to read, or do they suppose that others are not able to read, so they can get away with posting any nonsense they want?
As a service to the dyslectic, I repeat the qoute of Fabien with some bold-face highlighting of mine:
Fabien Letouzey wrote:The short answer was "no", it was not a verbatim copy of the source code. All the code had been typed (can't say "designed" though, see below) by an individual. So legally there was no issue that I knew of. It was however a whole re-write (copy with different words if you like, similar to a translation) of the algorithms. Not just an extraction of a couple of ideas as is common, and normal.
Fabien's open letter to the community
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 3245
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:10 am
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
My engine was quite strong till I added knowledge to it.
http://www.chess.hylogic.de
http://www.chess.hylogic.de
-
- Posts: 6340
- Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 2:34 pm
- Location: Acworth, GA
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
Question: If Vas LOST Rybka 3 Sources, Then how the Hell did he write Rybka 4 so fast. That is a hell of allot of code for a very strong program.Ovyron wrote:It's going to be a difficult case, Vas never saved his sources codes, he doesn't have the Rybka 3 one, so I'm sure he doesn't have the code of Rybka 1.1 or 2.0, all the investigations would need to be done as reverse engineered code.
It was unfortunate that Vas claimed Strelka's code as his own, since later it was found out that it had significant parts of Fruit.
As about the ply and node count obfuscations, they have been explained at Rybka forum, 3 plies are added to normalize the count relative to other engines, as earlier plies are "thinner" and don't fulfill their definition of ply, nodes are recalculated so they can be used to compare different hardware, i.e. higher nodes must mean higher strength at all times, unlike other engines that with hyperthreading show higher node count but play weaker.
Last edited by AdminX on Mon Jan 24, 2011 11:25 am, edited 2 times in total.
"Good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from bad decisions."
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
__________________________________________________________________
Ted Summers
-
- Posts: 588
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 4:47 pm
- Location: Singapore
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
It seems derivative under GPL is not only about 'cut_and_paste', but includes translation of the source code (including in a different computer language). So Strelka translating Fruit to bitboard has a legal issue if not GPL'ed. Any other program getting too close to Strelka could also legally be a derivative.JuLieN wrote:@HGM
Allow me to be a bit parodic, and don't take it bad.
It is really remarkable how everyone tries to twist facts to confirm their own point of view. Are they unable to read, or do they suppose that others are not able to read, so they can get away with posting any nonsense they want?
As a service to the dyslectic, I repeat the qoute of Fabien with some bold-face highlighting of mine:
Fabien Letouzey wrote:The short answer was "no", it was not a verbatim copy of the source code. All the code had been typed (can't say "designed" though, see below) by an individual. So legally there was no issue that I knew of. It was however a whole re-write (copy with different words if you like, similar to a translation) of the algorithms. Not just an extraction of a couple of ideas as is common, and normal.
Rasjid
-
- Posts: 482
- Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 4:23 am
- Location: Milky Way
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
HGM, please correct me if I am mistaken but if we do some logic progression it seems Fabien's open letter implies a lot of things:hgm wrote:It is really remarkable how everyone tries to twist facts to confirm their own point of view. Are they unable to read, or do they suppose that others are not able to read, so they can get away with posting any nonsense they want?
As a service to the dyslectic, I repeat the qoute of Fabien with some bold-face highlighting of mine:
Fabien Letouzey wrote:The short answer was "no", it was not a verbatim copy of the source code. All the code had been typed (can't say "designed" though, see below) by an individual. So legally there was no issue that I knew of. It was however a whole re-write (copy with different words if you like, similar to a translation) of the algorithms. Not just an extraction of a couple of ideas as is common, and normal.
1) AFAIK Strelka is a product of reverse engineering therefore it would never be a verbatim copy of the source of Rybka - Even less a verbatim copy of Fruit's source as it is, supposing it is contained in the original Rybka 1.0 source code;
2) The fact Strelka is pretty equivalent to Fruit's algorithms strongly suggests that the original Rybka's C source contained Fruit's algorithms, and most probably as a verbatim copy of Fruit (e.g Copy & Paste);
3) Hypothetically if one use a tool to rename all constants, variables and functions of a GPLed program and get a completely re-rewritten program, even then it constitutes a GPL violation;
4) Even if it is crystal clear for Fabien that Rybka is derived from his work he won't state publicly "Rybka is a clone" or whatever. I personally think, by reading his open letter, that Fabien firmly believes Rybka is derived from his work (after waking up from his hibernation) and now he wants to clean up all this mess.
Ben-Hur Carlos Langoni Junior
http://sourceforge.net/projects/redqueenchess/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/redqueenchess/
-
- Posts: 1243
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 7:00 pm
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
The issue is, Vasik could (I'm not saying he is!) violate the GPL all he wants, if the alledged original copyright holder doesn't care, nothing can possibily ever happen.hgm wrote: I don't understand the fuss. What Fabien _believes_ is of zero and void relevance, isn't it? The Strelka code is pubic. The Fruit code is public. Everyone that can read can _see_ if one is derived from the other, and if that is a copyright violation or not. Or is everyoone here a complete dyslectic, all worshippers of Fabien as the only person in this Universe that knows how to read?
But it seems the original copyright holder DOES CARE. What he believes certainly matters; it's the only way something can happen on the legal front.
-
- Posts: 27811
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:06 am
- Location: Amsterdam
- Full name: H G Muller
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
Well, that is not a violation of the GPL, well? So why do you think it is of any relevance whatsoever?JuLieN wrote:Fabien Letouzey wrote:The short answer was "no", it was not a verbatim copy of the source code. All the code had been typed (can't say "designed" though, see below) by an individual. So legally there was no issue that I knew of. It was however a whole re-write (copy with different words if you like, similar to a translation) of the algorithms. Not just an extraction of a couple of ideas as is common, and normal.
And it still does not say anything that anyone wih eyes could not have known for years...
-
- Posts: 10309
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:37 am
- Location: Tel-Aviv Israel
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
suppose that vasik violated the GPL with rybka1 beta(I also do not claim that it happened).Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:The issue is, Vasik could (I'm not saying he is!) violate the GPL all he wants, if the alledged original copyright holder doesn't care, nothing can possibily ever happen.hgm wrote: I don't understand the fuss. What Fabien _believes_ is of zero and void relevance, isn't it? The Strelka code is pubic. The Fruit code is public. Everyone that can read can _see_ if one is derived from the other, and if that is a copyright violation or not. Or is everyoone here a complete dyslectic, all worshippers of Fabien as the only person in this Universe that knows how to read?
But it seems the original copyright holder DOES CARE. What he believes certainly matters; it's the only way something can happen on the legal front.
What is the consequence or what legal steps can Fabien do against him?
He cannot force him to release the code of rybka1 beta in case that Vas simply lost the code.
He also cannot force Vas to release his latest rybka because there is no proof that Vasik broke the GPL of fruit with the latest rybka.
Can he ask court to force Vas to give him money?
If yes how much?
I am not a lawyer so I do not know.
-
- Posts: 27811
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 10:06 am
- Location: Amsterdam
- Full name: H G Muller
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
1) Yeah, so? Fabien did not tell anything that was not obvious even without knowing either the Strelka or the Fruit code?bhlangonijr wrote:HGM, please correct me if I am mistaken but if we do some logic progression it seems Fabien's open letter implies a lot of things:
1) AFAIK Strelka is a product of reverse engineering therefore it would never be a verbatim copy of the source of Rybka - Even less a verbatim copy of Fruit's source as it is, supposing it is contained in the original Rybka 1.0 source code;
2) The fact Strelka is pretty equivalent to Fruit's algorithms strongly suggests that the original Rybka's C source contained Fruit's algorithms, and most probably as a verbatim copy of Fruit (e.g Copy & Paste);
3) Hypothetically if one use a tool to rename all constants, variables and functions of a GPLed program and get a completely re-rewritten program, even then it constitutes a GPL violation;
4) Even if it is crystal clear for Fabien that Rybka is derived from his work he won't state publicly "Rybka is a clone" or whatever. I personally think, by reading his open letter, that Fabien firmly believes Rybka is derived from his work (after waking up from his hibernation) and now he wants to clean up all this mess.
2) Pure speculation. It can just as easily be a rewrite already in Rybka. You cannot know that, Fabien cannot know that without decompiling Rybka, or compiling Fruit with the same compiler as Rybka, and comparng the binaries. And neither of you have done that.
3) Indeed, merely renaming symbols would not be enough to wrestle a program out from under its copyrights, and there would be a strong legal case. Which Fabien dd just deny...
4) But he _says_ there is no legal case. Of course one can think that this is not very relevant, because it is only what he _says_, and he of course must _believe_ something completely different, because that is what you _believe_. So the fact that he directly contradicts what you believe must be very strong _proof_ that you have been right all along about this...
-
- Posts: 900
- Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 3:48 pm
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
Am I to believe that a professional developer loses the sources of all the previous versions? No version control to keep old versions? No backups, nothing?
I don't really care about the Clone Wars, but as a developer it's amusing to see claims like these, which are either lies or just pure stupidity.
I don't really care about the Clone Wars, but as a developer it's amusing to see claims like these, which are either lies or just pure stupidity.
-
- Posts: 10948
- Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 10:21 pm
- Full name: Kai Laskos
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
Using Don's similarity test, Strelka 1.8 is closer to Rybka 1.0 than the statistical noise, therefore Strelka 1.8 is an exact clone of Rybka 1.0 within error margins.Uri Blass wrote: The information that I can provide is that
Strelka1.8 is designed to be as similiar as possible to rybka1 beta.
There are positions when they have the same fail high and fail low and when I analyze blocked positions I get almost the same data(evaluation may be different by 0.01 pawns or something like that but they have the same fail high and fail low when the only difference is that free source strelka needs to get depth that is bigger by 2 plies).
strelka1.8 and Rybka1 beta even share the same bug that no program that I know has(not a bug that fruit has).
Uri
In the graph, the distance to the common ancestor denotes the degree of relatedness.
Also, Rybka 1.0 seems more related to Fruit 2.1 than Ippo family and Houdini are to Rybka 3.
Kai