Last Rybka Thread for now...

[Alexander Schmidt]

Hello Ed,

I did not do the decompiling, so I am the wrong person to ask. It is what was shown to the community last days. They still work on it and will present the result when they are ready. I think then you will get all informations you need.

Best wishes,
Alex

[bob]

7. Explain why your case should not be thrown right out of court with demand for costs.

I don't plan to go to court with it. I think you missunderstood my first post, everyone shall decide for himself if it is enough or not. I will not convince you, and you will not convince me.

Fair enough, I understand. But.

If you talk GPL licence, you talk legal. If you talk legal then it's fair to step ahead into a possible legal process. I argue that the thought experiment of stepping into legal process is going to be enough to make anyone recoil from it. Hence the GPL licence talk is weakened to zero as the GPL, is basically unenforcable even if the breaches you argue have taken place.

Finally you say it!

Wow! How many days of arguing using absurd reasoning against the provided evidence?

Wouldn't have been simpler to state it right from the start?

"Zach, Christophe, Norman, we don't care about any evidence, the GPL is invalid anyway."

As far as I can see, there are two programmers arguing against the evidence: you and Uri. And both of you have stated now that they think the GPL is invalid.
// Christophe

Christophe, the reason I don't usually bother responding to your posts is because I would not be responding to factual material or factual arguments but to your distorted and fantased interpretation of what I am saying. Commonly known as the straw man.

When you stop with the pre-assumptive statements "absurb reasoning", "we don't care about any evidence" and so on, I might be bothered to make a sensible communication, but I don't feel obliged to talk with or in propaganda mode. That's for posturing purposes only, imo.

As to the GPL. Hardly an impressive document, imo. Made by well motivated amateurs. Unfortunately they forget there's a real world out there.

So I'm correct if I say that you do not care about the GPL because it is invalid, in your opinion.

I think it's a very important point that could have been said a thousands of posts ago.



// Christophe

No, again you try to put words into my mouth. Again trying to set up straw man.

I think the GPL is not enforcable in cases where heavy modification of the GPL protected code has been made. I think it is enforcable for someone who changed 10% or 5% and tried calling it his own. But a massive rewrite, no way. Not that I believe this happened in the case in question anyway.

I also think that any person assigning his code into GPL licence knows perfectly well that he is only really potentially stopping the kind of usage that turned Crafty in Drafty or whatever they called it back whenever. Ie fiddling with text strings, calling it your own name and so on. The licensor knows perfectly well that competitors and other persons are going to be majorly hacking his stuff and pinching things, either lifting code or lifting knowledge. My guess is that Fabien understood that from the start, which is why he apparently shows little concern now. Did he use GPL because it was the best choice out of several or did he use it because it was all there was?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm trying to understand your thoughts by rephrasing them in simple terms. So you can correct me if I am wrong:

- The GPL cannot be enforced if I start from a GPL-protected source and change enough of it.

- Fabien knew from the start that derivated work including starting from his source and not only taking ideas would appear, so if the license explicitely prevents this, then it is not faithful to his real intentions.



// Christophe

I don't want to second guess Fabien's intentions. Fact remains that GPL is off the shelf and unmodified and without alternatives. It is reasonable to assume it is used because it is all there is rather than because it does exactly what is wanted.

Are you suggesting Vas took Fabien's entire source and modified it bit by bit? That would be somewhat outrageous given the lack of evidence.

I have never seen such utterly nonsensical ramblings and justifications.

The GPL is ambiguous and can't be enforced. (it can)

The GPL doesn't apply, because it was all that was available and really wasn't what Fabien wanted to use, but he used it in the absense of nothing better. (nobody has to use the GPL, you _choose_ to use it, you are not _forced_ to use it.)

The GPL hinders progress (exactly the opposite of what it actually does).

The GPL only applies to exact syntax, not to lines that are similar in syntax and identical in semantics.

The GPL doesn't apply to single lines here and there.

The list goes on and on. And it is all complete nonsense.

[Zach Wegner]

Alexander,

You snipped my comments about:

1) the disassembler you used, preferable with download link;

2) The offsets in both executable of the alleged similar code chunks so a few of us can check ourselves.

3) List the assembler code of both chunks. Are they 100% identical? I would like to see with my own eyes.

Does this mean you are not planning to provide this informations? If you don't we just have to assume you have done your (fragile and vulnerable) work without any mistakes and misinterpretations of the code? With fragile and vulnerable I mean that re-engineering source code from an executable is a very tricky and complex process and open to many mistakes (bugs).

Furthermore you should be eager enough to fully realize that the job you are doing is subject to unconscious tunnel-vision. You guys have put your teeth in this, that's usually when a tunnel-vision is looming. Be aware.

So provide these informations, your work should be able to put under the microscope for some of us here to judge. Failing to do so makes all your work worthless. This C-code you published is not good enough.

My best,

Ed

Hello Ed,

1. The disassembler used for all reverse engineering posted (by Rick Fadden, Dann Corbit, and myself) was IDA Pro. I use the free version. http://www.hex-rays.com/idapro/

2-3. Both the assembly code and the offsets for the code in question are listed here:
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 290#187290

And for the other code that I posted it's here: http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 18&start=0

I'm constructing a full decompilation of that code, and I'll have the assembly more fully commented.

I'd be glad to have this verified. It's much more interesting than 99% of the discussion going on now.

Regards,
Zach

[fern]

Even if Vas did what you say he probably did, to take a portion of code, do not you think that what is esential to understand Rybka as a different product is precisely what you yourself say Vas did of unique to get such a powerful machine?
IF Vas took a portion of GPL without, after that, reciprocate to the community, I ask myself if there is a "quid pro quo" between a piece of code that simply does a secondary job that everybody knows and an special piece of code that make the difference.
If I write a paper on new develpments on Math, certainly I will not give my ideas just like that because I made use of the known (a+b)2 is equal to a2 +2ab +b2.
Not fair...

Fern

[Uri Blass]

7. Explain why your case should not be thrown right out of court with demand for costs.

I don't plan to go to court with it. I think you missunderstood my first post, everyone shall decide for himself if it is enough or not. I will not convince you, and you will not convince me.

Fair enough, I understand. But.

If you talk GPL licence, you talk legal. If you talk legal then it's fair to step ahead into a possible legal process. I argue that the thought experiment of stepping into legal process is going to be enough to make anyone recoil from it. Hence the GPL licence talk is weakened to zero as the GPL, is basically unenforcable even if the breaches you argue have taken place.

Finally you say it!

Wow! How many days of arguing using absurd reasoning against the provided evidence?

Wouldn't have been simpler to state it right from the start?

"Zach, Christophe, Norman, we don't care about any evidence, the GPL is invalid anyway."

As far as I can see, there are two programmers arguing against the evidence: you and Uri. And both of you have stated now that they think the GPL is invalid.
// Christophe

Christophe, the reason I don't usually bother responding to your posts is because I would not be responding to factual material or factual arguments but to your distorted and fantased interpretation of what I am saying. Commonly known as the straw man.

When you stop with the pre-assumptive statements "absurb reasoning", "we don't care about any evidence" and so on, I might be bothered to make a sensible communication, but I don't feel obliged to talk with or in propaganda mode. That's for posturing purposes only, imo.

As to the GPL. Hardly an impressive document, imo. Made by well motivated amateurs. Unfortunately they forget there's a real world out there.

So I'm correct if I say that you do not care about the GPL because it is invalid, in your opinion.

I think it's a very important point that could have been said a thousands of posts ago.



// Christophe

No, again you try to put words into my mouth. Again trying to set up straw man.

I think the GPL is not enforcable in cases where heavy modification of the GPL protected code has been made. I think it is enforcable for someone who changed 10% or 5% and tried calling it his own. But a massive rewrite, no way. Not that I believe this happened in the case in question anyway.

I also think that any person assigning his code into GPL licence knows perfectly well that he is only really potentially stopping the kind of usage that turned Crafty in Drafty or whatever they called it back whenever. Ie fiddling with text strings, calling it your own name and so on. The licensor knows perfectly well that competitors and other persons are going to be majorly hacking his stuff and pinching things, either lifting code or lifting knowledge. My guess is that Fabien understood that from the start, which is why he apparently shows little concern now. Did he use GPL because it was the best choice out of several or did he use it because it was all there was?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm trying to understand your thoughts by rephrasing them in simple terms. So you can correct me if I am wrong:

- The GPL cannot be enforced if I start from a GPL-protected source and change enough of it.

- Fabien knew from the start that derivated work including starting from his source and not only taking ideas would appear, so if the license explicitely prevents this, then it is not faithful to his real intentions.



// Christophe

I don't want to second guess Fabien's intentions. Fact remains that GPL is off the shelf and unmodified and without alternatives. It is reasonable to assume it is used because it is all there is rather than because it does exactly what is wanted.

Are you suggesting Vas took Fabien's entire source and modified it bit by bit? That would be somewhat outrageous given the lack of evidence.

I have never seen such utterly nonsensical ramblings and justifications.

The GPL is ambiguous and can't be enforced. (it can)

The GPL doesn't apply, because it was all that was available and really wasn't what Fabien wanted to use, but he used it in the absense of nothing better. (nobody has to use the GPL, you _choose_ to use it, you are not _forced_ to use it.)

The GPL hinders progress (exactly the opposite of what it actually does).

The GPL only applies to exact syntax, not to lines that are similar in syntax and identical in semantics.

The GPL doesn't apply to single lines here and there.

The list goes on and on. And it is all complete nonsense.

The way that you use the GPL clearly can cause people to quit programming because they are going to be afraid of witch hunt against them.

The evidence that I saw does not convince me that rybka broke the GPL.

If one programmer undersands the code of another programmer and later write his code then it is logical to find more similiarities even if copy and paste is not done.

Uri

[Albert Silver]

Even if Vas did what you say he probably did, to take a portion of code, do not you think that what is esential to understand Rybka as a different product is precisely what you yourself say Vas did of unique to get such a powerful machine?
IF Vas took a portion of GPL without, after that, reciprocate to the community, I ask myself if there is a "quid pro quo" between a piece of code that simply does a secondary job that everybody knows and an special piece of code that make the difference.
If I write a paper on new develpments on Math, certainly I will not give my ideas just like that because I made use of the known (a+b)2 is equal to a2 +2ab +b2.
Not fair...

Fern

The worst part, IMHO, is that none of what has been shown is remotely related to Rybka's playing ability. I am unqualified to comment on the code itself, but what has been made clear, is that all that is being discussed is code about how the engine sends moves to the interface, and how it gets them back.

No one is arguing that Fruit is responsible in any way for Rybka's playing ability. In light of this, IMHO, the terms Fruit-derivative and clone really take on a ludicrous tone.

When the discussions about Rybka being a Fruit-derivative first broke out, it was natural to assume that this meant Rybka's playing ability. I mean, when someone says it is a derivative of Fruit, that is pretty much the only way I look at it frankly.

Now we read that Rybka's playing ability is not in question at all. No! It is the UCI code. Hang him! Ban him!

So many hours arguing and analyzing Rybka under a microscope just to talk about the UCI-code? I cannot begin to tell you how retarded or pathetic that all is in my eyes. Fruit-derivative indeed.... Get a life, guys. Just my 2 cents.

Albert

[genorb]

The GPL simply doesn't allow to copy a single line of GPL code or to start a new project with GPL code. All this work must be released under GPL too.

The following relation doesn't make sense to me

"The GPL simply doesn't allow to copy a single line of GPL code otherwise the code must be released under GPL too"... This is what you say above

I guess that GPL doesn't imply what you are saying. Indeed, I guess the following theorem is true

For any non GPL code there exists at least one GPL code such as they have at least one line of code in common (identical line of code but not necessarily at the same place in the code)

This would simply mean that all codes should be GPL... At least this how I understand what you say...

[fern]

Hi Albert:
It has been my point also. Surely of many people here. What matter is what makes Rybka such an engine and about that not a word.
"Derivative" is indeed a very derivative or good to derivate word with which you can mean anything.
My best
fern

[Damir]

Instead of all this fuss with Rybka beiing a Fruit clone, or having violated the

GPL of free source, ''how come nobody checks on Fritz 11 or Naum 3 for that

matter''.,

Since both of these 2 programs havecopied Rybka's style of play, why not

decompile them and see what is inside?

I am sure you will find plenty of interesting stuff there.

[Graham Banks]

Instead of all this fuss with Rybka beiing a Fruit clone, or having violated the

GPL of free source, ''how come nobody checks on Fritz 11 or Naum 3 for that

matter''.,

Since both of these 2 programs havecopied Rybka's style of play, why not

decompile them and see what is inside?

I am sure you will find plenty of interesting stuff there.

Because they have tunnel vision. They're only interested in discrediting Rybka it would seem.