GM Alexander Shabalov comments on Rybka 4 and Houdini.

[bob]

I think in light of recent revelations about Houdini, no company is going to be willing to sell it and take the risk of a major copyright infringement law suit. It is a direct derivative of Robo* and friends.

Lol who would sue Vasik???
Don't be childish, Robbo/Ippo etc. are Public Domain, meaning you can do with them whatever you like.

Not if they are derived from Rybka. And not if Rybka was derived from Fruit. One can't take a GPL-derivative and then close the source and distribute it. That is a direct violation of the GNU GPL. You can't reverse-engineer a program, then release that source as public domain. There is case law for that that is dead clear.

[Milos]

Not if they are derived from Rybka. And not if Rybka was derived from Fruit. One can't take a GPL-derivative and then close the source and distribute it. That is a direct violation of the GNU GPL. You can't reverse-engineer a program, then release that source as public domain. There is case law for that that is dead clear.

You really sound ridiculous. Fruit is open source, Ippo/Robbo is open source too, so I dare you to try find any (non PD) code that is the same.
If you manage I'll personally give you 1k$ as a gift. Chance for that is the same as to find some Fruit (non PD and non-licensed) code in Crafty, just to give you an idea, since you obviously didn't try yet .
Regarding RE stuff - you absolutely can RE a commercial program, take all the ideas, write your own program and publish it as public domain. As long as you don't translate any code directly you are free to go. And yes, you can take all the PST values change them for 5% and again you are free to go. Even if some giant such as Google or MS sue you .
Again I dare you to find any code from Rybka directly copied into Ippo/Robbo. But of course you can't, you can just blabber about it.
And finally even if someone managed to do that, he would need to take the case to the court. So who would actually do that, Vasik? Chessbase? You? Who?
So either try answering these questions realistically or give me a break.
It's quite embarrassing for a grown up man to be so detached from reality...

[bob]

Not if they are derived from Rybka. And not if Rybka was derived from Fruit. One can't take a GPL-derivative and then close the source and distribute it. That is a direct violation of the GNU GPL. You can't reverse-engineer a program, then release that source as public domain. There is case law for that that is dead clear.

You really sound ridiculous. Fruit is open source,

No it isn't. It is released under the Project GNU GPL license agreement. Where have you been for the past 5 years as this was discussed?

[quote[

Ippo/Robbo is open source too, so I dare you to try find any (non PD) code that is the same.

I do not know what you mean by "find any (non-PD) code". Fruit is not PD so the comment makes no sense.

If you manage I'll personally give you 1k$ as a gift. Chance for that is the same as to find some Fruit (non PD and non-licensed) code in Crafty, just to give you an idea, since you obviously didn't try yet .

There is zero fruit code in Crafty. Might be crafty code in fruit, or not. Haven't looked for that.

Regarding RE stuff - you absolutely can RE a commercial program, take all the ideas, write your own program and publish it as public domain.

Using a disassembler/decompiler is _not_ "taking ideas." It is _directly_ copying code that is copyrighted.

As long as you don't translate any code directly you are free to go. And yes, you can take all the PST values change them for 5% and again you are free to go.

Rubbish... and not worth arguing about.

Even if some giant such as Google or MS sue you .
Again I dare you to find any code from Rybka directly copied into Ippo/Robbo. But of course you can't, you can just blabber about it.

The code is certainly there. Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't make disappear.

And finally even if someone managed to do that, he would need to take the case to the court. So who would actually do that, Vasik? Chessbase? You? Who?

Whomever holds the copyright for the program that was copied. Most likely, today, Fabien.

So either try answering these questions realistically or give me a break.
It's quite embarrassing for a grown up man to be so detached from reality...

Then why don't you try to do something about it? I'm not the one that is "detached"... That only leaves....

[UncombedCoconut]

Bob, I think you misunderstood Milos. Here's an elaboration of what I saw in his initial points. (It's not an endorsement, but I'm trying to be fair.)

Both Fruit and IPPO/Robbo have published source, so shared code would be easy to identify if it existed.

To "find any (non-PD) code" means to find code which is shared by Fruit and IPPO/Robbo but not independently published in the public domain. (Such independent publication would make IPPO's/Robbo's usage legal.)

If one assumes that neither Fruit nor Crafty partially derive from Fruit, instances of common code will be both similar and limited to obvious snippets (such as C idioms or implementations of extensionally determined algorithms like "SEE neglecting pins").

After the "Regarding RE stuff" bit I simply agree.

[Milos]

You really sound ridiculous. Fruit is open source,

No it isn't. It is released under the Project GNU GPL license agreement. Where have you been for the past 5 years as this was discussed?

Arguing about definitions where you claim that if something is under GNU GPL it is not open-source just shows you have zero arguments (as usual) and keeping the argument for the sake of it, knowing in the same time you are wrong.
I doubt you are such an ignoramus, but please read this link which lists all open-source licenses, maybe you'll learn something.
And if you really think GNU GPL is not an open-source license I think you should seriously rethink retiring from university because teaching students that kind of crap is just outrages even for University of Alabama.

I do not know what you mean by "find any (non-PD) code". Fruit is not PD so the comment makes no sense.

Pretending you don't understand a sentence written in the sense that an elementary school child could understand it, confirms once again your lack of any argument and childish approach to the discussion.

There is zero fruit code in Crafty. Might be crafty code in fruit, or not. Haven't looked for that.

Once again your childish approach. Classical Ignoratio elenchi.

Using a disassembler/decompiler is _not_ "taking ideas." It is _directly_ copying code that is copyrighted.

So using disassembler = copying of code!???? Again a sentence without any sense. I'm starting to wonder if you are in Rolf mode...

As long as you don't translate any code directly you are free to go. And yes, you can take all the PST values change them for 5% and again you are free to go.

Rubbish... and not worth arguing about.

Avoiding argument.

The code is certainly there. Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't make disappear.

Just because you say so without ever providing any evidence means only you have no evidence. Again a very common tactics in discussion which can best be described with the (in)famous quote of J. Goebbels "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.".

And finally even if someone managed to do that, he would need to take the case to the court. So who would actually do that, Vasik? Chessbase? You? Who?

Whomever holds the copyright for the program that was copied. Most likely, today, Fabien.

Another classical logical fallacy - Non Sequitur.

So lets see, you answered 0 (zero) questions, presented 0 (zero) arguments and used 5 logic fallacies.
I really feel like I'm discussing with Rolf...

[bob]

You really sound ridiculous. Fruit is open source,

No it isn't. It is released under the Project GNU GPL license agreement. Where have you been for the past 5 years as this was discussed?

Arguing about definitions where you claim that if something is under GNU GPL it is not open-source just shows you have zero arguments (as usual) and keeping the argument for the sake of it, knowing in the same time you are wrong.
I doubt you are such an ignoramus, but please read this link which lists all open-source licenses, maybe you'll learn something.
And if you really think GNU GPL is not an open-source license I think you should seriously rethink retiring from university because teaching students that kind of crap is just outrages even for University of Alabama.

GPL is not _any_ open source license. It is a specific one that has specific requirements. (1) the GPL has to be included in any derived work that is distributed; (2) the source has to be included in the distributed derived work. (3) the derived version itself has to be released under the GPL. Seems pretty clear to me this is not just a "here's a source program, do with it as you please."

I do not know what you mean by "find any (non-PD) code". Fruit is not PD so the comment makes no sense.

Pretending you don't understand a sentence written in the sense that an elementary school child could understand it, confirms once again your lack of any argument and childish approach to the discussion.

Could it be you had no point, since you offered no explanation? Fruit is not a PD program. It is a GPL PD program. BIG difference. GPL has significant restrictions and requirements that must be satisfied.

There is zero fruit code in Crafty. Might be crafty code in fruit, or not. Haven't looked for that.

Once again your childish approach. Classical Ignoratio elenchi.

Using a disassembler/decompiler is _not_ "taking ideas." It is _directly_ copying code that is copyrighted.

So using disassembler = copying of code!???? Again a sentence without any sense. I'm starting to wonder if you are in Rolf mode...

All you have to do is read. If you disassemble an executable, then decompile that (or if the decompiler works directly with the binary, skip the first step) and use that code, damned right it is not "taking ideas". It is copying code. And no amount of wriggling around, dancing, dodging and such will escape that key point. For the case of IP*/Robo* and all the derivatives of those (Ivanhoe, firebird, Houdine, and who knows what else) the code is _clearly_ copied. Because it is _clearly_ the output of a decompilation of a previously compiled/optimized program. Clear at least to those that are familiar with C and assembly language and with how humans write code.



[/quote]

As long as you don't translate any code directly you are free to go. And yes, you can take all the PST values change them for 5% and again you are free to go.

Rubbish... and not worth arguing about.

Avoiding argument.

The code is certainly there. Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't make disappear.

Just because you say so without ever providing any evidence means only you have no evidence. Again a very common tactics in discussion which can best be described with the (in)famous quote of J. Goebbels "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.".

And finally even if someone managed to do that, he would need to take the case to the court. So who would actually do that, Vasik? Chessbase? You? Who?

Whomever holds the copyright for the program that was copied. Most likely, today, Fabien.

Another classical logical fallacy - Non Sequitur.

So lets see, you answered 0 (zero) questions, presented 0 (zero) arguments and used 5 logic fallacies.
I really feel like I'm discussing with Rolf...[/quote]

So do I. But in any case, as someone that knows a hell of a lot more about C programming, assembly language programming, compilers, and such than you do, there is no doubt whatsoever that Houdini was derived directly from Robolito. Chris Conkie (and others) have provided more than enough data to make that certain. Where Robo*/ip* came from is a different issue. I strongly suspect Rybka, but I have not had the interest to verify that since Vas could do it much easier and has already claimed such although he has not offered any proof. Without proof, we've (the moderators) elected to allow discussions about this pot of derivatives to continue, but absolutely no one is considering allowing _any_ of those to participate in online or ICGA tournaments, ever, unless solid proof of origin for IP*/Robo* is provided that shows it did not come from Rybka. Houdini is _still_ left out in the cold because it definitely comes from Robo*, and will not be acceptable until it is rewritten completely, something that is not going to happen.

[Dirt]

Fruit is not a PD program. It is a GPL PD program.

If PD means public domain, that looks like an oxymoron to me. I think you meant it is a GPL open source program.

But in any case, as someone that knows a hell of a lot more about C programming, assembly language programming, compilers, and such than you do, there is no doubt whatsoever that Houdini was derived directly from Robolito.

I'll accept your opinion on that, but were some of the Robolitos released as public domain? If so, and if it was valid, Houdini would be fine. At least as long as it stayed out of tournaments that insist on original code. (Or maybe that was only Strelka, I'm not sure.)

[Albert Silver]

Fruit is not a PD program. It is a GPL PD program.

If PD means public domain, that looks like an oxymoron to me. I think you meant it is a GPL open source program.

But in any case, as someone that knows a hell of a lot more about C programming, assembly language programming, compilers, and such than you do, there is no doubt whatsoever that Houdini was derived directly from Robolito.

I'll accept your opinion on that, but were some of the Robolitos released as public domain? If so, and if it was valid, Houdini would be fine. At least as long as it stayed out of tournaments that insist on original code. (Or maybe that was only Strelka, I'm not sure.)

You're forgetting one thing:

"For the case of IP*/Robo* and all the derivatives of those (Ivanhoe, firebird, Houdini, and who knows what else) the code is clearly copied. Because it is clearly the output of a decompilation of a previously compiled/optimized program."

One cannot copy and paste the decompilation of another program and declare it as PD.

[bob]

Fruit is not a PD program. It is a GPL PD program.

If PD means public domain, that looks like an oxymoron to me. I think you meant it is a GPL open source program.

Too many think "public domain" means "freely downloadable". In that context, fruit is PD, but it does have the GPL constraints on its usage.

But in any case, as someone that knows a hell of a lot more about C programming, assembly language programming, compilers, and such than you do, there is no doubt whatsoever that Houdini was derived directly from Robolito.

I'll accept your opinion on that, but were some of the Robolitos released as public domain? If so, and if it was valid, Houdini would be fine. At least as long as it stayed out of tournaments that insist on original code. (Or maybe that was only Strelka, I'm not sure.)

The Robo's were released public domain. But a derivative of one of them (Houdini) is _not_ fine for participation. And, in fact, the origin of Robo is almost certainly rybka, which means that even robo/ip are not legal in any sense of the word. And, in fact, Rybka itself is not a legal program, at least not any of the versions that were reverse-engineered.

My take on this is as follows:

1. Rybka violates both Crafty and Fruit copyright, the Crafty license and the Fruit GPL license.

2. ippo/robo violate copyright be being reverse-engineered from Rybka. No overwhelming proof of that yet, but it is a near-certainty.

3. Houdini, ivanhoe, firebird, et. al. are all derived directly from Robolito. They are copies of copies of copies. None are legally valid, nor ethically acceptable.

[bob]

Fruit is not a PD program. It is a GPL PD program.

If PD means public domain, that looks like an oxymoron to me. I think you meant it is a GPL open source program.

But in any case, as someone that knows a hell of a lot more about C programming, assembly language programming, compilers, and such than you do, there is no doubt whatsoever that Houdini was derived directly from Robolito.

I'll accept your opinion on that, but were some of the Robolitos released as public domain? If so, and if it was valid, Houdini would be fine. At least as long as it stayed out of tournaments that insist on original code. (Or maybe that was only Strelka, I'm not sure.)

You're forgetting one thing:

"For the case of IP*/Robo* and all the derivatives of those (Ivanhoe, firebird, Houdini, and who knows what else) the code is clearly copied. Because it is clearly the output of a decompilation of a previously compiled/optimized program."

One cannot copy and paste the decompilation of another program and declare it as PD.

That's the key. And decompiling is purely copying, not writing original code.