GM Alexander Shabalov comments on Rybka 4 and Houdini.

[Uri Blass]

so the question is
who owns the IP*/Robo* source?

If it is fabien then everyone can change the IPPO source and sell the exe file in case that he get an agreement with fabien that may mean that fabien earns part of the money.

If it is more than one author then it still may be commercial and legal if all the author agree about how to divide the money between them.

[bob]

so the question is
who owns the IP*/Robo* source?

If it is fabien then everyone can change the IPPO source and sell the exe file in case that he get an agreement with fabien that may mean that fabien earns part of the money.

If it is more than one author then it still may be commercial and legal if all the author agree about how to divide the money between them.

It is not so clear. If code was added that was not part of fruit, such as what Vas probably added during development of Rybka after copying Fruit, then that code still belongs to Vas. As a copyright issue. Not releasing the source is a GPL violation, obviously, but someone else copying it and then releasing it is a copyright violation. So we have one giant mess where I couldn't begin to guess what might eventually happen, or who/what is legal and who/what is not.

Yes, the authors could likely come to some "internal agreement", although there are still problems with the closed-source versions of Robo* unless those authors are a part of the agreement. At this point in time, I think the entire family should be vaporized, and if anyone wants to start over, from scratch, the correct way, then more power to them.

[Dirt]

Fruit is not a PD program. It is a GPL PD program.

If PD means public domain, that looks like an oxymoron to me. I think you meant it is a GPL open source program.

But in any case, as someone that knows a hell of a lot more about C programming, assembly language programming, compilers, and such than you do, there is no doubt whatsoever that Houdini was derived directly from Robolito.

I'll accept your opinion on that, but were some of the Robolitos released as public domain? If so, and if it was valid, Houdini would be fine. At least as long as it stayed out of tournaments that insist on original code. (Or maybe that was only Strelka, I'm not sure.)

You're forgetting one thing:

"For the case of IP*/Robo* and all the derivatives of those (Ivanhoe, firebird, Houdini, and who knows what else) the code is clearly copied. Because it is clearly the output of a decompilation of a previously compiled/optimized program."

One cannot copy and paste the decompilation of another program and declare it as PD.

I didn't forget that, although I'm not an expert either. That's why I included the "and if it was valid" clause.

[Michel]

At this point in time, I think the entire family should be vaporized, and if anyone wants to start over, from scratch, the correct way, then more power to them.

And that would be a ridiculous waste of resources. This "family" has culminated in the strongest chess program ever. Much stronger than what people imagined was possible a couple of years ago.

It is sad though that it happened through theft, deception and dishonesty.

[Don]

Guess what! Houdini 2.0 will be released as a the next CB engine in 2011 ready for Xmas!! Just Watch

I seriously doubt that. If they do, they are going to have their hands full with accusation and legal challenges and it's very likely they will not be allowed in ICGA tournaments anyway, which will be very negative press for them. I seriously doubt charging a huge price to lease a clone of Ivanhoe is going to set well with consumers either.

Don

[gerold]

Guess what! Houdini 2.0 will be released as a the next CB engine in 2011 ready for Xmas!! Just Watch

I seriously doubt that. If they do, they are going to have their hands full with accusation and legal challenges and it's very likely they will not be allowed in ICGA tournaments anyway, which will be very negative press for them. I seriously doubt charging a huge price to lease a clone of Ivanhoe is going to set well with consumers either.

Don

They sell Rybka.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Guess what! Houdini 2.0 will be released as a the next CB engine in 2011 ready for Xmas!! Just Watch

I seriously doubt that. If they do, they are going to have their hands full with accusation and legal challenges and it's very likely they will not be allowed in ICGA tournaments anyway, which will be very negative press for them. I seriously doubt charging a huge price to lease a clone of Ivanhoe is going to set well with consumers either.

Don

They sell Rybka.

[Don]

Guess what! Houdini 2.0 will be released as a the next CB engine in 2011 ready for Xmas!! Just Watch

I seriously doubt that. If they do, they are going to have their hands full with accusation and legal challenges and it's very likely they will not be allowed in ICGA tournaments anyway, which will be very negative press for them. I seriously doubt charging a huge price to lease a clone of Ivanhoe is going to set well with consumers either.

Don

They sell Rybka.

That's not clever. Things are a lot different now, and it's very unlikely they knew about Rybka being based so strongly on Fruit at the time. However, they must surely know that Houdini is strongly based on Ivanhoe. If they want to make themselves a part of the fallout that results from that, then they will certainly have their hands full.

To be honest, it might be a calculated gamble for them and they could get away with it because of the Ivanoe license, etc. It might be legal to copy Ivanhoe or too difficult to chain backwards (in a court of law that is) to expose what has really happened.

However, I think this could damage them, perhaps more than it could hurt them because whether it goes to court or not it will surely lead to a LOT of very bad press for them.

If such a thing happened, it would make me feel sick that someone could get away with such an unjust thing.