Milos wrote:bob wrote:Milos wrote:You really sound ridiculous. Fruit is open source,
No it isn't. It is released under the Project GNU GPL license agreement. Where have you been for the past 5 years as this was discussed?
Arguing about definitions where you claim that if something is under GNU GPL it is not open-source just shows you have zero arguments (as usual) and keeping the argument for the sake of it, knowing in the same time you are wrong.
I doubt you are such an ignoramus, but please read this
link which lists all open-source licenses, maybe you'll learn something.
And if you really think GNU GPL is not an open-source license I think you should seriously rethink retiring from university because teaching students that kind of crap is just outrages even for University of Alabama.
GPL is not _any_ open source license. It is a specific one that has specific requirements. (1) the GPL has to be included in any derived work that is distributed; (2) the source has to be included in the distributed derived work. (3) the derived version itself has to be released under the GPL. Seems pretty clear to me this is not just a "here's a source program, do with it as you please."
I do not know what you mean by "find any (non-PD) code". Fruit is not PD so the comment makes no sense.
Pretending you don't understand a sentence written in the sense that an elementary school child could understand it, confirms once again your lack of any argument and childish approach to the discussion.
Could it be you had no point, since you offered no explanation? Fruit is not a PD program. It is a GPL PD program. BIG difference. GPL has significant restrictions and requirements that must be satisfied.
There is zero fruit code in Crafty. Might be crafty code in fruit, or not. Haven't looked for that.
Once again your childish approach. Classical
Ignoratio elenchi.
Using a disassembler/decompiler is _not_ "taking ideas." It is _directly_ copying code that is copyrighted.
So using disassembler = copying of code!???? Again a sentence without any sense. I'm starting to wonder if you are in Rolf mode...
All you have to do is read. If you disassemble an executable, then decompile that (or if the decompiler works directly with the binary, skip the first step) and use that code, damned right it is not "taking ideas". It is copying code. And no amount of wriggling around, dancing, dodging and such will escape that key point. For the case of IP*/Robo* and all the derivatives of those (Ivanhoe, firebird, Houdine, 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. Clear at least to those that are familiar with C and assembly language and with how humans write code.
[/quote]
As long as you don't translate any code directly you are free to go. And yes, you can take all the PST values change them for 5% and again you are free to go.
Rubbish... and not worth arguing about.
Avoiding argument.
The code is certainly there. Just because you don't want to believe it doesn't make disappear.
Just because you say so without ever providing any evidence means only you have no evidence. Again a very common tactics in discussion which can best be described with the (in)famous quote of J. Goebbels "If you repeat a lie often enough, it becomes the truth.".
And finally even if someone managed to do that, he would need to take the case to the court. So who would actually do that, Vasik? Chessbase? You? Who?
Whomever holds the copyright for the program that was copied. Most likely, today, Fabien.
Another classical logical fallacy -
Non Sequitur.
So lets see, you answered 0 (zero) questions, presented 0 (zero) arguments and used 5 logic fallacies.
I really feel like I'm discussing with Rolf...[/quote]
So do I. 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. Chris Conkie (and others) have provided more than enough data to make that certain. Where Robo*/ip* came from is a different issue. I strongly suspect Rybka, but I have not had the interest to verify that since Vas could do it much easier and has already claimed such although he has not offered any proof. Without proof, we've (the moderators) elected to allow discussions about this pot of derivatives to continue, but absolutely no one is considering allowing _any_ of those to participate in online or ICGA tournaments, ever, unless solid proof of origin for IP*/Robo* is provided that shows it did not come from Rybka. Houdini is _still_ left out in the cold because it definitely comes from Robo*, and will not be acceptable until it is rewritten completely, something that is not going to happen.