What's the latest on the Rybka-Fruit situation

[UncombedCoconut]

In addition to this, since Bob does not provide explicitly any license with his source code he cannot claim any violation of (legal) rights.

Strange. I thought you were literate.

[Milos]

In addition to this, since Bob does not provide explicitly any license with his source code he cannot claim any violation of (legal) rights.

Strange. I thought you were literate.

Having license quoted just in main.c is not sufficient to cover the whole package. License have to be present either separately with clear explanation of terms or in every source file. A term "program" in license in main.c is at least dubious. That's why ppl like Bob suck at legal things, coz they think if they "invent" some license in their "Alice's wonderland" it will also be good in a real world.
Maybe you should consult an IP lawyer before you start judging other ppl's literacy.

[Dann Corbit]

In addition to this, since Bob does not provide explicitly any license with his source code he cannot claim any violation of (legal) rights.

Strange. I thought you were literate.

Having license quoted just in main.c is not sufficient to cover the whole package. License have to be present either separately with clear explanation of terms or in every source file. A term "program" in license in main.c is at least dubious. That's why ppl like Bob suck at legal things, coz they think if they "invent" some license in their "Alice's wonderland" it will also be good in a real world.
Maybe you should consult an IP lawyer before you start judging other ppl's literacy.

Without the main.c notice, we would have to assume normal copyright (it does not require a copyright notice for copyright to be in force).
Therefore, any code usage beyond fair use would require explicit, written permission from the author.

[Onno Garms]

@Onno: there is a newer version of the Mark Watkins paper here.

Thanks. That seems to be what I have overlooked.

It now mentions also Crafty. The evidence shown there looks quite heavy, nevertheless it should neither be relevant for the current ICGA investigation nor for Fabien and the Fruit-Rybka case since it is all about the early pre-beta "Rybka 1.6x". That case is definitely very relevant for Bob, though, no doubt here.

Fully acknowledged. Heavy evidence for a copyright violation against Bob by copying code. Shows that Vas did break copyrights. But findings in Rybka 1.6.x do not prove that there are copyright violations in Rybka 1.0 beta as we currently assume that the latter has nothing in common with the old weak engine but the name.

[Onno Garms]

Moreover, if Rybka 1.6x is a private engine (it has not been distributed in any way)

It obviously has been distributed to at least one person, otherwise the panel would not have it.

In addition to this, since Bob does not provide explicitly any license with his source code he cannot claim any violation of (legal) rights.

As others said: First, Bob does provide a license in main.c. Second, even without a license statement, code is copyrighted and must not be copied into your released program without a permission.

I'm not sure if it is possible to publish source code and to prohibit private changes as Bob did in his license and if a license placed in just one source file is effective, but we don't have to answer these questions to find that the distribution of a Crafty based engine (which Rybka 1.6.x was) is a copyright violation.

[ozziejoe]

it does establish a pattern of behavior. It shows that vas was willing to copy code at one time.

[Onno Garms]

it does establish a pattern of behavior. It shows that vas was willing to copy code at one time.

Sure, but we are having something like a court on Rybka 1.0 Beta. We act as judges. Findings like the copyright violation against Crafty would have been useful in the phase where we acted as detectives, but that phase has long been over now.

If you are accused to have stolen A, you cannot be adjudged because it was proven that you stole B some time before.

[michiguel]

Moreover, if Rybka 1.6x is a private engine (it has not been distributed in any way)

It obviously has been distributed to at least one person, otherwise the panel would not have it.

It was given to a tester and the author specifically did not authorize the release and/or the distribution. The tester gave the copy to the panel thinking he was cheated, despite the author said "no".

Whatever it was, this is not a copy that was distributed. In other areas, with an agreement like this, the tester is an extension of the author.

The main and the most serious problem is that one R1.6 version participated in a CCT tournament. However, this was not part of ICGA, which makes things a bit complicated for this organization to enforce.

Miguel

In addition to this, since Bob does not provide explicitly any license with his source code he cannot claim any violation of (legal) rights.

As others said: First, Bob does provide a license in main.c. Second, even without a license statement, code is copyrighted and must not be copied into your released program without a permission.

I'm not sure if it is possible to publish source code and to prohibit private changes as Bob did in his license and if a license placed in just one source file is effective, but we don't have to answer these questions to find that the distribution of a Crafty based engine (which Rybka 1.6.x was) is a copyright violation.

[ozziejoe]

you are right. it is only one sample which is not reliable. It is possible that he copied code in this one instance and did not do it in any future instances. Maybe he had some sort of ethical revelation and realized "I better write the next rybka from scratch instead of copying other people's code." This is a possibility. Moral transformation is always possible.


I'll be interested to see if the ICGA conclude that he has copied from fruit. Even if they conclude he has, this is still only an N of 2 and does not establish that he copies code in every instance.




best
Joseph

[bob]

You need to re-read things then, as you seriously overlooked things. First, there are several _identical_ blocks of code in Rybka 1.6.1 and Crafty 19.0. The C code in Crafty is presented (along with a couple of built-in bugs) and the assembly language from Rybka 1.6.1 is given with a reverse-compile back to see. There are _perfect_ matches. In one case, for a block of code that is 100 lines of C (EvaluateWinner()). Other examples include NextMove(), NextEvasion() and such. Those are _not_ "algorithms."

Are you sure that we are talking about the same paper?
I was talking of
http://www.open-chess.org/download/file.php?id=304

No, I am talking about the ICGA Wiki pages we set up to carry out this investigation. All of it will be made public. But I have previously explained the rybka 1.6.1 / Crafty 19.0 problem in detail here and on the Rybka forum...

This is basically the only ressource I know. Crafty is not mentioned in it at all. Maybe the thing I have overlooked is the link to some other ressource?
I also had a quick look at
https://webspace.utexas.edu/zzw57/rtc/eval/eval.html
but that does not seem to be fundamentally different from the PDF above.