Strelka -- Open source

[Christopher Conkie]

Oh miracle he talk again
But as always "prazni prikazki"

Is that a "yes"?

Ask inquiry office

Inquiry? No need...........

Tossa is your kind of engine.......believe.......

[Dann Corbit]

I think that the moral judgements are not as clear as you imagine.
Suppose that Newton and Leibnitz had invented calculus and kept it for themselves. If someone found their writings and wrote their own book on calculus, did that person do a good thing or a bad thing? In one sense, they did a good thing because they gave calculus to the world. But in another sense they did a bad thing because they took the work of another author without their permission.

I have feelings in both directions and I really can't reconcile them so I won't pretend to have an answer.

One thing that is morally clear to me (but it is only *my* opinion, which is no better than anyone else's):
There should have been honest disclosure of the sources from the start.

Now, that having been said, ultimately acceptance of a chess program depends upon acceptance from the chess community. Every opinion is one tiny voice but the total sum of the voices will average out to something (I don't know what it is).

What I am trying to say is that I do not see the issues as black and white and obvious. I also do not think Mr. Osipov has meant any harm as the original intention, but that is just a guess. At any rate, I am not in a position to pontificate on this because I don't feel qualified to go beyond what I have already said.

[hristo]

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?

Nope.

Big no.

Rybka is not GPL. It contains both Fruit and Rybka therefore you cannot GPL it unless Vasik says so. One assumes that Fabian is ok with that but both must say so.

Hello Christopher.
I have a few corrections (objections) to the above.

If Rybka has GPL-ed code in it then Rybka must be GPL or it must not be distributed. There is simply no way out of this one and it isn't up to Vas to chose the license! (GPL is very clear on this topic)

If Rybka's code was written entirely* by Vas, regardless of what inspired it, then he can release under any license he choses.

('entirely' doesn't mean that the code must be 100% different from the original (GPL) code, since there are some aspects of writing code that cannot be handled differently -- and in this sense and in those cases it becomes impossible to assert copyright. For example handling a 'read()' function-call offers only a limited amount of reasonable continuations, '#define', etc. are not subject to copyright).

The Strelka case has some strong indications of disassembled code being copied, from Rybka, directly into the Strelka source code. This is a simple copyright violation, IMO. The same way one cannot claim copyright ownership of Shakespeare's works by going through google translator, one cannot use a disassembler and claim ownership of the output.

If Strelka was a mere reimplementation of the ideas that are in Rybka then the conversation would be different, but this is not the case, IMO. Strelka contains code that was stolen from Rybka and is in a violation of copyright laws. Furthermore, having this knowledge one can not absolve the author(s) of Strelka from their responsibilities and cannot grant them a free pass to simply obfuscate the code to an extent that makes it unrecognizable.
The same way we don't let criminals go back to the crime-scene and allow them to clear up the evidence with a smudge stick.

Regards and Happy New Year,
Hristo

[Christopher Conkie]

Maybe I did not explain myself so well. I actually agree with you 100% on this.

Evgenii said....

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

How Fabian would know what Rybka is in Strelka is beyond me.

My reply to him was about Strelka..........the word "It" = Strelka in the following statement.....

Rybka is not GPL. It contains both Fruit and Rybka therefore you cannot GPL it unless Vasik says so. One assumes that Fabian is ok with that but both must say so.

In other words Fabian deals with the Fruit in Strelka and Vas deals with the Rybka in Strelka.

The problem that arises stems from Strelka being a hybrid engine constructed from two engines with differing licenses.

Fabian could agree that the Fruit in Strelka could be made open under GPL but Vas would have also have to agree that the Rybka parts of Strelka could be released in the same way before any complete release of the source could take place.

The same way we don't let criminals go back to the crime-scene and allow them to clear up the evidence with a smudge stick.

In Pakistan anything is possible......



Happy New Year to you as well.

Christopher

[Alexander Schmidt]

Rybka also has parts of Fruit, but for you it is OK.

Learn reading. I didn't say It is OK for me if Rybka has parts of Fruit inside, of course it's not. I said it is not prooven. I also said my personal opinion, that there are strange similaries between Rybka and Fruit.

I stop the discussion here, it's totaly useless to discuss with you...

[slobo]

Rybka also has parts of Fruit, but for you it is OK.

Learn reading. I didn't say It is OK for me if Rybka has parts of Fruit inside, of course it's not. I said it is not prooven. I also said my personal opinion, that there are strange similaries between Rybka and Fruit.

I stop the discussion here, it's totaly useless to discuss with you...

You´ve been smiling all the time, Alex, and now, suddenly, you became so serious and offended. Learn discussing, Alex, without affecting your humor.

[Alexander Schmidt]

Learn discussing, Alex, without affecting your humor.

It's boring when I have to repeat myself all the time because people allege something I never said. I don't support any kind of stolen intelectual property. No matter who is affected. But I cannot blame an author for a "crime" as long as I don't have an evidence. What someone said who has stolen intelectual property himself is no evidence for me.

Want to see a smiley?

[Alexander Schmidt]

In an interview about 1.5 years ago Vasik Rajlich did say Rybka had about 5-10% Fruit in it. No one took notice then. I don't think he has ever given credit to Fabien Letouzey.

I made the interview

Vas didn't say he has taken Code, but ideas of Fruit what is OK.

"21. Alexander Schmidt:

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. In the meantime it is clear that Rybka is no clone but you used ideas of Fruit (I guess all other serious engine programmers had a look at Fruit too). How strong would Rybka actually be if the Fruit code would have never been published?

Vasik Rajlich:

It's a good question. I don't want to get too specific about which ideas from Fruit I think are really useful, but they fall into two categories:

1) Very specific tricks, mostly related to search.
2) Philosophy of the engine (and in particular of the search).

Fruit could really hardly be more useful along both of these dimensions. Fabien is a very good engineer, and also has a very clear and simple conception of how his search should behave.

Anyway, if I really had to give a number - my wild guess is that Rybka would be 20 rating points weaker had Fruit not appeared."

http://www.superchessengine.com/

[Rolf]

Suppose that Newton and Leibnitz had invented calculus and kept it for themselves. If someone found their writings and wrote their own book on calculus, did that person do a good thing or a bad thing? In one sense, they did a good thing because they gave calculus to the world. But in another sense they did a bad thing because they took the work of another author without their permission.

I have feelings in both directions and I really can't reconcile them so I won't pretend to have an answer.

One thing that is morally clear to me (but it is only *my* opinion, which is no better than anyone else's):
There should have been honest disclosure of the sources from the start.

Now, that having been said, ultimately acceptance of a chess program depends upon acceptance from the chess community. Every opinion is one tiny voice but the total sum of the voices will average out to something (I don't know what it is).

What I am trying to say is that I do not see the issues as black and white and obvious. I also do not think Mr. Osipov has meant any harm as the original intention, but that is just a guess. At any rate, I am not in a position to pontificate on this because I don't feel qualified to go beyond what I have already said.

If God had forgotten his plans for the creation of the World and I would have found his notes in a MCDonalds Drive In, I would have felt entitled to give this World to the People. No doubt about that one. Would that have been a good thing to do or a bad thing?

No, dear expert, you have left real life and its dimensions, methinks. Until a few moments ago I thought that an expert here would speak without any business bias. Know what I mean? No IBM bias (contract) that ordered experts to psych out Kasparov and then cover up the fact by simply losing memory of decent science; remember, it was sort of research where Kasparov was the invited and for his chess talents chosen client, but NOT engaged to demonstrate his formerly widely known auto-suggestive suspicions on his own mind - in front of a chessplaying machine that was operated by the IBM team.

Could you please repeat for the lay readers what Strelka author has "given" to the computerchess community and mankind?

It's frightening how you wind your expert status so that you must not decide (in public) what your knowledge would tell you. Back from Newton & Cantor you fetch the ticket of friendship now so that you cant tell anymore what's right and what's wrong. But there is always help.

When God created the World there was nothing beautiful before and when he created computerchess there was the schism between coffee-house patzers and imperfectly calculating GM stars. But now we can exactly tell who is stronger. It's you or me with our Fritz or Rybkas.

Isnt it a wonder how Vasik created Rybka and made it stronger than everything on dvd? Did Strelka author XY achieve the same wonder? And you as an expert cant tell us that what Vas achieved isnt thinkable by mere cheating but what Strelka and Toga architects achieved is well comparable to Fruit and possibly Rybka 1.0? You cant or you dont want to speak it out? I ask as a lay who cant decide what is speakable at all. Please excuse me if I may sound impolite but I do just want to know exactly if you cant speak or dont want to speak because your relationsships in the community.

I may add a personal note to all experts. Please do realise that you are judge and advising expert in one. You simply dont have the exit of no say. If you experts dont tell what you know about the truth THEN you betray our whole community because there wont be a court where we could get the truth. So, please stand up and say the truth.

If nobody is there I must call my old friend in Alabama! Bob, please make the situation a little bit clearer. Thank you.

[slobo]

In an interview about 1.5 years ago Vasik Rajlich did say Rybka had about 5-10% Fruit in it. No one took notice then. I don't think he has ever given credit to Fabien Letouzey.

I made the interview

Vas didn't say he has taken Code, but ideas of Fruit what is OK.

"21. Alexander Schmidt:

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. In the meantime it is clear that Rybka is no clone but you used ideas of Fruit (I guess all other serious engine programmers had a look at Fruit too). How strong would Rybka actually be if the Fruit code would have never been published?

Vasik Rajlich:

It's a good question. I don't want to get too specific about which ideas from Fruit I think are really useful, but they fall into two categories:

1) Very specific tricks, mostly related to search.
2) Philosophy of the engine (and in particular of the search).

Fruit could really hardly be more useful along both of these dimensions. Fabien is a very good engineer, and also has a very clear and simple conception of how his search should behave.

Anyway, if I really had to give a number - my wild guess is that Rybka would be 20 rating points weaker had Fruit not appeared."

http://www.superchessengine.com/

Nice to see you smiling again, Alex.
You like Vas & Rybka, don´t you?

But if Vas uses Fabien´s ideas, don´t you think he should give Fabien some credit? Where Rybka would be without "5-10% of Fruit"?

And how do you know it is only "5-10% of Fruit"? Have you seen Rybka´s code?