No, it's all wrong with your quotes.bob wrote: So, one of the two following statements is true:
(1) Vas lied when he said no part of Fruit is in Rybka, but that Strelka was an exact clone of Rybka 1, since there are similarities between strelka and fruit. SO if strelka is a clone of Rybka, and it has "fruity code" something is wrong.
(2) Vas lied when he said Strelka is an exact clone of Rybka. Which for us is irrelevant since we have not been comparing strelka to Rybka in quite a while since we have been comparing the R1 beta binary to Fruit.
Vas never said that no parts of Fruit were in Rybka. To the contrary he said I took many things! Among them public domain stuff and such. So, if you want there is a philosophical contradiction when he says he wrote the whole code by himself. But you are the programmer not me.
Vas never said that Strelka is a Fruit clone. Vas never said that Strelka is an exact Rybka clone either. He claimed something like this is my program and he wanted to market it. If he had meant it is my own as an exact copy a marketing would be silly because people already had his program. This is also sort of irony which Vas is using in his speech. (The same with his reply to David "I dont really know what to say"... This is why you, Bob and others like Keith Hyams believe, Vas is saying nothing at all - in a juridical sense!) I am really eager to receive the reports how the judge in Fabien's case will react on such verbal quotings.
I cant explain as a lay what your findings about Rybka 1 beta could mean, cloning or GPL, but I doubt that it has any impact on R 3 & 4.
I would really not expect that you in such a tribunal will outsort a World Champion collegie of undoubtable expertise and replacing him by such anons Norman and Lenin. I trust David that he isnt such a fool to cooperate with anons, although he also believes in making love to a computer in future. Bob, you certainly wouldnt do this, no?!