hgm wrote:
Who says he used code then? The comparison I am commenting on talks about "having innovative ideas from". Not "using code of".
hgm wrote:
Ippolit, on the other hand, seems to be a decompiled code...
If it was derived from a decompiled Rybka, that would make it totally illegal. Any work based on Ippolit would be based on _stolen_ code.
When decompiling too, no one copies the code. In the EXE-file is simply no source code in C language.
Decompilation - is also "having innovative ideas from". Not "using code of".
I went through the Rybka code forwards and backwards and took many things.
Such 'mechanical' transformations still fall under copyright laws. It is like copying an audio tape to CD. If I would invent a new audio-compression system 'MP2011', that will not allow me to start selling Beatles songs in that format. That would be an infringement on copyrights of those songs, despite the fact that the bit strings I would be selling is completely different.
There also exists somethinglike 'Translation Copyrights'. If I translate a book in another language, the law does recognize this as an effort for which I am entitled some reward (unlike when I would have merely run it through Google translate or Babelfish!), so Translation Copyrights stipulate that others cannot copy my translation without my permission. But I still cannot distribute the translation without permission of the owner of the copyrights of the original work.
This applies just as much to software. If I use decompilers / disassemblers / recompilers to cast a piece of software from one form into another automatically, the original copyrights still apply, and I have no rights at all. If the translation requires a significant personal effort, translation copyrights would apply. In no case this would break the grip of the original copyrights.
hgm wrote:Such 'mechanical' transformations still fall under copyright laws. It is like copying an audio tape to CD. If I would invent a new audio-compression system 'MP2011', that will not allow me to start selling Beatles songs in that format. That would be an infringement on copyrights of those songs, despite the fact that the bit strings I would be selling is completely different.
There also exists somethinglike 'Translation Copyrights'. If I translate a book in another language, the law does recognize this as an effort for which I am entitled some reward (unlike when I would have merely run it through Google translate or Babelfish!), so Translation Copyrights stipulate that others cannot copy my translation without my permission. But I still cannot distribute the translation without permission of the owner of the copyrights of the original work.
This applies just as much to software. If I use decompilers / disassemblers / recompilers to cast a piece of software from one form into another automatically, the original copyrights still apply, and I have no rights at all. If the translation requires a significant personal effort, translation copyrights would apply. In no case this would break the grip of the original copyrights.
Decompilation requires very significant personal effort. Much more significant than a simple translation from one language to another.
I went through the Rybka code forwards and backwards and took many things.
Ant_Gugdin wrote:
Jury, do you have a theory on where Ippolit comes from, then?
Of course, Ippolit was made from some version of Rybka. But not from Rybka3 - there are too many differences. Such modifications could make only the author of Rybka.
I have no idea who released Ippolit and for what purpose. But without Vas is just not done. Perhaps the source had been stolen, or we are dealing with a good joke of Vas.
Ippolit code is rather clean, while Robbo and all later sources are big mess. They have a lot of things that should look like that are produced by disassembler (for example: DI(p->move)], [AI(p->move)], etc. ). To me it looks like someone tried very hard to make additional confusion and hide true source of ippolit.
Osipov Jury wrote:Decompilation requires very significant personal effort. Much more significant than a simple translation from one language to another.
The exact amount of effort does not matter to the law, as long as it is not negligible. It determines what the copyrights are worth, not who owns them. Even if it would be 100 times more effort to translate a book into a hyper-complex language than it took to write the original in a simplistic language like Engish, you still only get translation copyrights for it, and the translated work still falls under the copyrights of the original owner (in addition to your own). Distributing it wihout his permission would still be an infringement.
hgm wrote:The exact amount of effort does not matter to the law, as long as it is not negligible. It determines what the copyrights are worth, not who owns them. Even if it would be 100 times more effort to translate a book into a hyper-complex language than it took to write the original in a simplistic language like Engish, you still only get translation copyrights for it, and the translated work still falls under the copyrights of the original owner (in addition to your own). Distributing it wihout his permission would still be an infringement.
A translation of Fruit to bitboards requires much effort?
I went through the Rybka code forwards and backwards and took many things.
I think indeed that such a conversion would not be considered a translation in the sense of the copyright laws. If it would, then Fruit itself would not be copyrightable, as it is merely a slightly improved rewrite of TSCP...
