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.
1) Yeah, so? Fabien did not tell anything that was not obvious even without knowing either the Strelka or the Fruit code?
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...
