Robodini Q&A

[Rebel]

Besides, I think that Robert deserves some respect for his achievement,

Absolutely.

We just want him to come clean, and stop dodging. Just to admit that Houdini started as Robbolito, and say which version. But somehow I doubt he will do it, and it is also likely that this code base is not public domain but GPL (see the many elements on that provided by Norman Schmidt).

Robert could make a deal with Norman for his Italian to English translation job --> Hollywood ending.

[chessmann]

Please... let someone combine these two Robodini threads into one.

Guardian of the tidiness.

[Lavir]

We just want him to come clean, and stop dodging. Just to admit that Houdini started as Robbolito, and say which version. But somehow I doubt he will do it, and it is also likely that this code base is not public domain but GPL (see the many elements on that provided by Norman Schmidt).

And please, tell me, what difference would that make for "you" or anybody's else if Robert would state that openly (and not just implying the same as he has already done)?

What the astounding difference it would make if he would say it? Will it change something in the engine? Will it change something on what happened? Will it change something on the "originality" of the product in its released state? Will it change something of concrete on whatever practical point?

The only motive why you or anybody's else could search this "proof" has nothing to do with knowing the truth or not or just for clarity or anything like that (just because it doesn't make any sense logically; the product you have now it's obviously different from Robbo so from whence he started what difference does it make on the engine called Houdini? None). That's just a parade. You just want to know it so you can have some kind of "moral ground" on which to consider the work of Robert "worse" than that of someone you like more on the basis of the point of start and having the word of Robert is naturally much more than a simple hypothesis; that would be certainty and would give the moral ground stand some emphasis.

Moral ground that it's only a farce, since everybody (and I mean the word) of the top engines' authors use or used the same code Robert used and everybody started from the same exact base; if he is a copier, the others are too, in the same - exact - way. The only difference is that he, differently from others, has been able to come with something new on top of that in a measure that others have not been able to and since these others cannot obviously attack his engine directly (by elo) then they have to find a way to do so indirectly; and what's best card than the "morality" one?

[JuLieN]

Please... let someone combine these two Robodini threads into one.

Guardian of the tidiness.

This is sadly not possible with our aged forum software, sorry.

[Peter Skinner]

I recently had a conversation on a chess server regarding the Ippolit/RobboLito source code and the license to it.

Who ever released this code in to the wild attached a license to it, but to make it a valid license, the author must be known. This isn't the case with that code base. The authors chose the option of ownership under pseudonyms, which means they can not be properly identified, nor would they be able to pursue copyright infringement.

If they tried, they would first have to prove they are in fact the authors of said code, and would likely fail. Anyone could claim ownership, and there's the rub. With no defined authorship, this is essentially free code. There are many examples where code has been released for anyone to use, modify, and publish. No one seems to complain in those instances. So why here?

I believe this should be classified as public domain code, and people should use it. Robert H has done just that, and improved on it. Not everyone created the wheel, but people took the design and made it better. This is exactly what happened in Houdini's instance.

While it may have started out with the Robolitto code base, it is obviously much stronger than any of the derivatives. Whether we like it or not, our sport invariably changed when the suspect source came to light. How to move forward with this change is now the difficult part.

This argument needs to end, with solutions put in place, so that tournament play can resume. As it is, our sport is dying, right before our eyes.

Just my two cents, but they sit in my very heavy hand.

Peter

[Adam Hair]

I recently had a conversation on a chess server regarding the Ippolit/RobboLito source code and the license to it.

Who ever released this code in to the wild attached a license to it, but to make it a valid license, the author must be known. This isn't the case with that code base. The authors chose the option of ownership under pseudonyms, which means they can not be properly identified, nor would they be able to pursue copyright infringement.

If they tried, they would first have to prove they are in fact the authors of said code, and would likely fail. Anyone could claim ownership, and there's the rub. With no defined authorship, this is essentially free code. There are many examples where code has been released for anyone to use, modify, and publish. No one seems to complain in those instances. So why here?

I believe this should be classified as public domain code, and people should use it. Robert H has done just that, and improved on it. Not everyone created the wheel, but people took the design and made it better. This is exactly what happened in Houdini's instance.

While it may have started out with the Robolitto code base, it is obviously much stronger than any of the derivatives. Whether we like it or not, our sport invariably changed when the suspect source came to light. How to move forward with this change is now the difficult part.

This argument needs to end, with solutions put in place, so that tournament play can resume. As it is, our sport is dying, right before our eyes.

Just my two cents, but they sit in my very heavy hand.

Peter

If I am not mistaken, the code released by the "Decembrists" at the Ippolit forum is public domain. However, GPL was attached to versions of Robbolitto released by Norman Schmidt and Milos Stanisavljevic. I believe that the GPL would cover some, if not all, of Norman's and Milos' modifications. Any code base that included their GPL protected contributions would be subject to GPL.

Other than that, I agree. Robert has made significant contributions to Houdini's code base, if not in quantity then definitely in quality (measured in Elo and by game play by some). Some people have talent in creating a new work, others have a talent for improving existing work. Both are good in general.

And it would be much better if tournaments were again the driving force behind engine development. It generates much more excitement for the authors and the fans, IMHO.

[Lusakan]

..

If I am not mistaken, the code released by the "Decembrists" at the Ippolit forum is public domain. However, GPL was attached to versions of Robbolitto released by Norman Schmidt and Milos Stanisavljevic. I believe that the GPL would cover some, if not all, of Norman's and Milos' modifications. Any code base that included their GPL protected contributions would be subject to GPL.

......

So is it allowed if I get public domain code published by unknown people, add afew things, and re-publish the whole as GPL under my name? Norman and Milos should have isolated their original contribution and published only those modules under GPL so that all can know what they are submitting for GPL. Anything else is an attempt to privatise a public item which they used so that others cant use it.

[velmarin]

..

If I am not mistaken, the code released by the "Decembrists" at the Ippolit forum is public domain. However, GPL was attached to versions of Robbolitto released by Norman Schmidt and Milos Stanisavljevic. I believe that the GPL would cover some, if not all, of Norman's and Milos' modifications. Any code base that included their GPL protected contributions would be subject to GPL.

......

So is it allowed if I get public domain code published by unknown people, add afew things, and re-publish the whole as GPL under my name? Norman and Milos should have isolated their original contribution and published only those modules under GPL so that all can know what they are submitting for GPL. Anything else is an attempt to privatise a public item which they used so that others cant use it.

And never better expressed.
Ippolit Project is public domain, at every corner.
Norman GPL is smoke

[Adam Hair]

[quote="Lusakan"][quote="Adam Hair"] ..

If I am not mistaken, the code released by the "Decembrists" at the Ippolit forum is public domain. However, GPL was attached to versions of Robbolitto released by Norman Schmidt and Milos Stanisavljevic. I believe that the GPL would cover some, if not all, of Norman's and Milos' modifications. Any code base that included their GPL protected contributions would be subject to GPL.

......[/quote]

So is it allowed if I get public domain code published by unknown people, add afew things, and re-publish the whole as GPL under my name? Norman and Milos should have isolated their original contribution and published only those modules under GPL so that all can know what they are submitting for GPL. Anything else is an attempt to privatise a public item which they used so that others cant use it.[/quote]

I do not necessarily disagree with you. But I do not know exactly what their contributions were, nor do I know how the contributions could be isolated, nor do I know what parts of their contributions would be covered by the GPL.

I do know that by applying the GPL to their versions of Robbolito was not an act of privatisation. Rather it was an act to prevent privatisation.

[Adam Hair]

..

If I am not mistaken, the code released by the "Decembrists" at the Ippolit forum is public domain. However, GPL was attached to versions of Robbolitto released by Norman Schmidt and Milos Stanisavljevic. I believe that the GPL would cover some, if not all, of Norman's and Milos' modifications. Any code base that included their GPL protected contributions would be subject to GPL.

......

So is it allowed if I get public domain code published by unknown people, add afew things, and re-publish the whole as GPL under my name? Norman and Milos should have isolated their original contribution and published only those modules under GPL so that all can know what they are submitting for GPL. Anything else is an attempt to privatise a public item which they used so that others cant use it.

And never better expressed.
Ippolit Project is public domain, at every corner.
Norman GPL is smoke

Why have you chosen to privatise public domain code? It appears to me that Norman was trying to prevent what you have done, closing the source code.