Zach Wegner wrote:If Vas were to be cleared of legal wrongdoing, it would not bring me any closure personally. All it would do would be to give certain people a sense of smug satisfaction and others a sense of the inadequacy of the legal system.
I don't quite get this statement Zach. Could you expand please? Does this mean that even if it were independently verified as legal, you would then question that independent authority, if you did not get the result you personally seem to want?
I thought you wanted a resolution.....no?
What resolution is there if you cannot abide by that decision?
What Zach means is that courts of law cannot declare 'truth' but only gives a decision (very expert opinion) if something has broken or have not broken any law.
Zach Wegner wrote:If Vas were to be cleared of legal wrongdoing, it would not bring me any closure personally. All it would do would be to give certain people a sense of smug satisfaction and others a sense of the inadequacy of the legal system.
I don't quite get this statement Zach. Could you expand please? Does this mean that even if it were independently verified as legal, you would then question that independent authority, if you did not get the result you personally seem to want?
I thought you wanted a resolution.....no?
What resolution is there if you cannot abide by that decision?
What Zach means is that courts of law cannot declare 'truth' but only gives a decision (very expert opinion) if something has broken or have not broken any law.
Rasjid.
Ok
I am sorry. I still think I did not express myself too well as neither English nor language is my tongue.
More specifically, what Zach means is this :-
If a man loses a case, he would just say "I lost the case". It does not say anything about the man changing his believes in anything with one exception - if prior to the case, he believed judges to be the most intelligent of creatures that walk on two, he might now change this particular belief; that any creature is intelligent enough to preside in a court of law including creatures that walk on four.
Adam Hair wrote:
Use wb2uci. That is how I am able to include Crafty and Thinker.
Unfortunately, some engines do not work well with the sim program,
whether they be WB or UCI.
I'm not sure which diagonal you are refering to. Covariance matrix
or similarity matrix?
I have not had time yet to really try out other linkage methods.
But I will do so.
EDIT: I realize that you (probably) meant the similarity matrix.
Yes, I added in the diagonal. I cheated and used 100%, though
I have enough duplicate data to determine the self-similarity.
Yes, sim. matrix. I put in by hand 100%, but I tried with 70% and 50%, nothing changes, I am not worried about that. I do nat have enough self-similarity data to fill up correctly the diagonal.
Laskos wrote:
I might try to add in some WB engines. I have an old Zap or Zappa which doesn't work properly with Don's utility, it uses 3-10% of CPU cycles and gives strange results. This happens with several other UCI engines too.
Yes, I've observed the same behavior.
Laskos wrote:
In SPSS it's easy to change the linkage methods, but I have to have a clue what they are actually doing .
Kai
Me too . In the trial version of Systat, I can change the linkage
methods also. I hope to have some time this weekend to do some
reading, and then experiment with these.
bob wrote:Fabien could almost certainly win a civil trial, but what damages could he be awarded since his program was not commercial, his reputation has not been damaged. He has just been "ripped off"...
If someone took my open source code, modified it and closed the source, and then made profit selling the modified version, the first question I would ask my lawyer is "can I sue for part of the profit?"
So where this goes is most likely nowhere... Typically a FSF action stops at the point where the copying party agrees to provide the source... So there is always a way out...
I'm not sure the FSF would be so charitable here. There are at least two GPL breaches: (i) failure to release the Rybka source code, and (ii) selling for profit. Providing the source code would fix (i) but not (ii). I don't have any knowledge of the inner workings of the FSF but given that their whole aim is to promote free software, I can see them taking a very dim view indeed of (ii).
Its not illegal to sell gpled software. The only requirement is that the source has to be open and that all derivatives have to use the same license. For example, its perfectly legal for Red Hat to sell their Red Hat Enterprise linux package, consisting mostly of gpled software. The same way, its perfectly legal for CentOS to take the source code from Red Hat and give it away free of charge as CentOS.
Zach Wegner wrote:
This is pretty silly. All the debating nonsense here is basically arguing whether something unethical happened, based on people's opinions--not many of which are likely to change.
In addition there are some legal technicalities that could decide the outcome of the case. If Vas were to be cleared of legal wrongdoing, it would not bring me any closure personally.
This is true. But what would this all mean? couldnt it be that Vas is just a bit smarter than some here were thinking?
What do you think why I - without the least programming knowledge - told you better not to spend your lifetime for that problem. It's just life experience. I mean, With your talents, why dont you focus on your own thing? Or become a lawyer and make a case. But even with eagle's eyes as a programmer you cant legally convict Vas because it's not about chess programming in court.
I'm deeply impressed by the depressive meaning of your conclusion. The only solution for you is to learn that it's not your business to go for vengeance. Make no mistake, the whole development, excuse me, is asking for professional mental help.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
wims wrote:Its not illegal to sell gpled software. The only requirement is that the source has to be open and that all derivatives have to use the same license. For example, its perfectly legal for Red Hat to sell their Red Hat Enterprise linux package, consisting mostly of gpled software. The same way, its perfectly legal for CentOS to take the source code from Red Hat and give it away free of charge as CentOS.
This is the section from the GPL v 2 which I'm referring to:
2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) ...
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
c) ...
I have no idea what Red Hat is but perhaps it falls within the following section of the GPL. I don't think Rybka does.
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
Apologies if I've gone wrong somewhere here - it's quite late where I am.
wims wrote:Its not illegal to sell gpled software. The only requirement is that the source has to be open and that all derivatives have to use the same license. For example, its perfectly legal for Red Hat to sell their Red Hat Enterprise linux package, consisting mostly of gpled software. The same way, its perfectly legal for CentOS to take the source code from Red Hat and give it away free of charge as CentOS.
As I read it, you can charge for the service of distributing free GPL'd software but you can't create a derivative work from a GPL'd program and then sell that derivative work. Here's another passage from the GPL:
Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
Emphasis added. Rybka ain't free. However the waters are muddied by the fact that, although it seems Rybka 1 is almost certainly a derivative of Fruit (on the GPL definition), nobody has proved that Rybka 3/4 are.
Zach Wegner wrote:If Vas were to be cleared of legal wrongdoing, it would not bring me any closure personally. All it would do would be to give certain people a sense of smug satisfaction and others a sense of the inadequacy of the legal system.
I don't quite get this statement Zach. Could you expand please? Does this mean that even if it were independently verified as legal, you would then question that independent authority, if you did not get the result you personally seem to want?
I thought you wanted a resolution.....no?
What resolution is there if you cannot abide by that decision?
It will _never_ be "verified as legal." The best possible outcome is "not proven illegal" which is not the same thing at all. This is a pretty grey area of copyright law, with lots of technical aspects. Many people are found "not guilty" on technicalities. But the verdict is always "not guilty" as opposed to "innocent".
Certainly, code was copied. Whether it is enough to wake up the FSF or not is unknown. If it does, whether it is enough to justify a costly/lengthy legal battle is also unknown, but doubtful.
I see two potential outcomes.
(1) Vas is forced to release his source to satisfy the GPL, and the issue goes away.
(2) A court trial results in "not guilty" due to some very unclear legal issues.
The most likely is that nothing happens at all, IMHO.
frcha wrote:Are there instances where GPL violation was successfully persecuted - where the code was not blatantly cut and paste but modified + new ideas injected in?
My take on this is that Vas is clearly dishonest about the origins of his engine - but whether its is legal or not -- its hard to say...
-- This too was the same issue with Ippolit of course - clearly dishonest but not necessarily illegal..
....and the wheel keeps turning...
Which is why I have had no problem testing ippolit , houdini on my machine -- I really don't have a clue whether it is legal or not ..
A rating list can have Rybka H and I with an asterisk next to them *dubious/disputed origin
Take a hypothetical example. You take the source for the GNU C compiler (before there was a C++ even). You modify it so that it will accept C++ syntax. You modify the optimizer so that it produces better code for newer processors. You sell the executable but do not offer source. Are you in violation of the GPL? Absolutely. If you can show that you rewrote _everything_ so that nothing remains of the original (and no, this is not about a line like i=0; or other such nonsense) then your code is not subject to GPL and all is well. But only if no original GPL code remains. And that does mean "any" by a pretty well-defined concept.
If you can turn a C compiler into C++ then you are a true genius
