Strelka -- Open source

[Dann Corbit]

Consider the reverse engineering of several DOS clones like DR-DOS. The source code for MS-DOS was never made available. So engineers did debugging traces and wrote down an API specification. Using this API, engineers wrote another version of DOS that worked exactly the same as MS-DOS. There was nothing illegal about it.

Now, as far as moral sense goes that is another story. If he has borrowed information from Rybka, then I think at least he should say so in his release notes. As far as Fruit usage goes, I think that the jury is still out, but it is clearly not just a simple cut and paste job, because extensive modifications are needed to transform a non-bitboard program into a bitboard program.

As far as "author admissions" go, I am not sure that he has admitted to anything illegal or even that the one who said these things really is the Strelka author. If one quote is to be believed then all of them? If so that would mean that Rybka is a Fruit clone also. But I doubt it. So I think it puts everything the "poster" said into doubt {whoever it was}.

In the final analysis, the acceptance of the work of the Strelka author depends on the acceptance of the computer chess community.

I think that open source would be a good idea, because it would show what he has done that is original. As far as I know, nobody who has seen the source code {so far} has said that they thought Strelka was a clone -- based on those observations (but final resolution depends on Fabian, I think). I am not sure what Vas thinks about it, and I would be interested to hear his full opinion. The reverse engineering of Rybka began the moment it was released, because lots of people wanted to learn what Vas was doing. Look at Chrilly Donninger's posts about Rybka and you will see that he spent considerable effort in a debugger figuring out what Rybka was doing. Is this activity illegal? No it isn't. Is it moral? That is another question that I do not know the answer to.

[Christopher Conkie]

but final resolution depends on Fabian, I think

Moreso Vasik. I don't get why you keep punting the "Fabian Boat".

Tell me how Fabian could decide if Vasik's source should be released?

Christopher

[GenoM]

but final resolution depends on Fabian, I think

Moreso Vasik. I don't get why you keep punting the "Fabian Boat".

Tell me how Fabian could decide if Vasik's source should be released?

Christopher

IF Fabien says Rybka has too much of Fruit in it, then it has to be GPL-ed, hasn't it?
Do you agree?

[hristo]

Consider the reverse engineering of several DOS clones like DR-DOS. The source code for MS-DOS was never made available. So engineers did debugging traces and wrote down an API specification. Using this API, engineers wrote another version of DOS that worked exactly the same as MS-DOS. There was nothing illegal about it.

Extracting API specifications and then implementing that API is distinctly different from "disassembling and integrating the disassembled code into ones own application". Having the knowledge that there is a function with a prototype "double function_name (char* p1, int p2, int p3)" is not the same as taking the content of the function and pasting it into ones own program, don't you agree?

Now, as far as moral sense goes that is another story. If he has borrowed information from Rybka, then I think at least he should say so in his release notes. As far as Fruit usage goes, I think that the jury is still out, but it is clearly not just a simple cut and paste job, because extensive modifications are needed to transform a non-bitboard program into a bitboard program.

This is contingent on the amount of code that was copied (or had to be integrated) from Rybka. [assuming that such transfer of information occurred] In the process of integration one might have had to yank rather large blocks of disassembled code and as a result end up with software that doesn't look like Fruit, even though it might retain some of its properties.

Look at Chrilly Donninger's posts about Rybka and you will see that he spent considerable effort in a debugger figuring out what Rybka was doing. Is this activity illegal? No it isn't. Is it moral? That is another question that I do not know the answer to.

I also don't think that this activity is illegal. However, what you do with the acquired knowledge might be. If Chirlly managed to understand how the program works and is inclined to implement his own version of it, then more power to him. If, on the other hand, he took the disassembled code and then called it his own creation then that would be, more than likely, illegal.

Regards,
Hristo

[slobo]

but final resolution depends on Fabian, I think

Moreso Vasik. I don't get why you keep punting the "Fabian Boat".

Tell me how Fabian could decide if Vasik's source should be released?

Christopher

IF Fabien says Rybka has too much of Fruit in it, then it has to be GPL-ed, hasn't it?
Do you agree?

Of course. What else could I do?

[slobo]

Consider the reverse engineering of several DOS clones like DR-DOS. The source code for MS-DOS was never made available. So engineers did debugging traces and wrote down an API specification. Using this API, engineers wrote another version of DOS that worked exactly the same as MS-DOS. There was nothing illegal about it.

Now, as far as moral sense goes that is another story. If he has borrowed information from Rybka, then I think at least he should say so in his release notes. As far as Fruit usage goes, I think that the jury is still out, but it is clearly not just a simple cut and paste job, because extensive modifications are needed to transform a non-bitboard program into a bitboard program.

As far as "author admissions" go, I am not sure that he has admitted to anything illegal or even that the one who said these things really is the Strelka author. If one quote is to be believed then all of them? If so that would mean that Rybka is a Fruit clone also. But I doubt it. So I think it puts everything the "poster" said into doubt {whoever it was}.

In the final analysis, the acceptance of the work of the Strelka author depends on the acceptance of the computer chess community.

I think that open source would be a good idea, because it would show what he has done that is original. As far as I know, nobody who has seen the source code {so far} has said that they thought Strelka was a clone -- based on those observations (but final resolution depends on Fabian, I think). I am not sure what Vas thinks about it, and I would be interested to hear his full opinion. The reverse engineering of Rybka began the moment it was released, because lots of people wanted to learn what Vas was doing. Look at Chrilly Donninger's posts about Rybka and you will see that he spent considerable effort in a debugger figuring out what Rybka was doing. Is this activity illegal? No it isn't. Is it moral? That is another question that I do not know the answer to.

I like honest people like you, Dann.

[Dann Corbit]

Consider the reverse engineering of several DOS clones like DR-DOS. The source code for MS-DOS was never made available. So engineers did debugging traces and wrote down an API specification. Using this API, engineers wrote another version of DOS that worked exactly the same as MS-DOS. There was nothing illegal about it.

Extracting API specifications and then implementing that API is distinctly different from "disassembling and integrating the disassembled code into ones own application". Having the knowledge that there is a function with a prototype "double function_name (char* p1, int p2, int p3)" is not the same as taking the content of the function and pasting it into ones own program, don't you agree?

Well, it is more than just a bare API. They also described the algorithm (since algorithms are only protected by patents).

Now, as far as moral sense goes that is another story. If he has borrowed information from Rybka, then I think at least he should say so in his release notes. As far as Fruit usage goes, I think that the jury is still out, but it is clearly not just a simple cut and paste job, because extensive modifications are needed to transform a non-bitboard program into a bitboard program.

This is contingent on the amount of code that was copied (or had to be integrated) from Rybka. [assuming that such transfer of information occurred] In the process of integration one might have had to yank rather large blocks of disassembled code and as a result end up with software that doesn't look like Fruit, even though it might retain some of its properties.

Look at Chrilly Donninger's posts about Rybka and you will see that he spent considerable effort in a debugger figuring out what Rybka was doing. Is this activity illegal? No it isn't. Is it moral? That is another question that I do not know the answer to.

I also don't think that this activity is illegal. However, what you do with the acquired knowledge might be. If Chirlly managed to understand how the program works and is inclined to implement his own version of it, then more power to him. If, on the other hand, he took the disassembled code and then called it his own creation then that would be, more than likely, illegal.

Regards,
Hristo

Of course, I am not a lawyer, and so it is always possible that my understandings of things may not be correct. At any rate, I have said just about all I can about Strelka.

[Uri Blass]

but final resolution depends on Fabian, I think

Moreso Vasik. I don't get why you keep punting the "Fabian Boat".

Tell me how Fabian could decide if Vasik's source should be released?

Christopher

IF Fabien says Rybka has too much of Fruit in it, then it has to be GPL-ed, hasn't it?
Do you agree?

I do not expect Fabien to say that strelka has to be GPL-ed but
Fabien needs rybka's code to say that rybka has to be GPL-ed and he has not rybka's code.

Uri

[GenoM]

but final resolution depends on Fabian, I think

Moreso Vasik. I don't get why you keep punting the "Fabian Boat".

Tell me how Fabian could decide if Vasik's source should be released?

Christopher

IF Fabien says Rybka has too much of Fruit in it, then it has to be GPL-ed, hasn't it?
Do you agree?

I do not expect Fabien to say that strelka has to be GPL-ed but
Fabien needs rybka's code to say that rybka has to be GPL-ed and he has not rybka's code.

Uri

Of course. Uri, you're right.
Fabien, they said, has just a STRELKA code, NOT RYBKA's code.

[slobo]

but final resolution depends on Fabian, I think

Moreso Vasik. I don't get why you keep punting the "Fabian Boat".

Tell me how Fabian could decide if Vasik's source should be released?

Christopher

IF Fabien says Rybka has too much of Fruit in it, then it has to be GPL-ed, hasn't it?
Do you agree?

I do not expect Fabien to say that strelka has to be GPL-ed but
Fabien needs rybka's code to say that rybka has to be GPL-ed and he has not rybka's code.

Uri

Of course. Uri, you're right.
Fabien, they said, has just a STRELKA code, NOT RYBKA's code.

Let me translate it for Uri:

Uri, if Strelka is Rybka´s clone, then it´s enough to have only Strelka´s code and say whether Rybka is a clone or not. Do you understand now?