http://www.superchessengine.com/vasik_rajlich.htmI went through the Fruit 2.1 source code forwards and backwards and took many things.
So Osipov no more guilty than Rajlich.
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
http://www.superchessengine.com/vasik_rajlich.htmI went through the Fruit 2.1 source code forwards and backwards and took many things.
This is simply bad mouthing or a language problem. Read the _whole_Andrej Sidorov wrote:Vasik Rajlich told:http://www.superchessengine.com/vasik_rajlich.htmI went through the Fruit 2.1 source code forwards and backwards and took many things.
So Osipov no more guilty than Rajlich.
The GPL does not force you to release your modified copy. So playing an engine that is based on GPL code in a tournarment does not violate the GPL. The GPL only states: If you release, you have to release the source.Guetti wrote:But nowaday projects start from Fruit, Toga, Crafty, and after a bit of coding, they are entered into the WCCC (see Gridchess). And nobody objects or cares about GPL.
So didn't Osipov. Corbit an Hoffman didn't see any resemblance with Fruit in Strelka sources.GS wrote:He did not 'took' any code but the ideas of Fruits algorithms.
Guenther
sorry,mjlef wrote:I suppose it all depends on how the program was structured. Tord went from mailbox to bitboard yet all the specifics are well placed in functions. So the search part of the code and even the evaluation looks remarkably similiar.
I am still impressed by this reverse engineering job. But I feel bad. SHould I be impressed by a copy of the Mona Lisa?
This is obvious that means: Ideas and not the code of Fruit.Andrej Sidorov wrote:Vasik Rajlich told:I went through the Fruit 2.1 source code forwards and backwards and took many things.
Here we are playing with words and actually who knows what he meant in the original Russian post. The translation says:Andrej Sidorov wrote:So didn't Osipov. Corbit an Hoffman didn't see any resemblance with Fruit in Strelka sources.GS wrote:He did not 'took' any code but the ideas of Fruits algorithms.
Guenther
Why shouldn’t Rajlich discover code of Rybka to experts (as Osipov did) to prove that he didn't copy parts of Fruit? Or didn't rewrite Fruit as Osipov claims?We had our first contact when I had questions about a similarity to Fruit in the search, others found similarities in the evaluation. Some people where a little bit suspicious that Rybka could be a clone of the open source engine.
How can you "copy and rewrite"? Either you copy and modify, or you rewrite. As Dan Corbit did not tell anything about code stolen from Fruit, obviously the latter has been done. Moreover, even without knowing Russian language, isn't it clear from Dan's expertise that we should not take "not changed anything" too literally?George Tsavdaris wrote: From this and from the important "This operation had not changed anything" means he has copied Fruit's source and rewritten it to use bitboards.