Do some reading first. You can't decompile (reverse-engineer) and then sell that result as your own. That is a clear and simple copyright/patent infringement. You are certainly allowed to look inside to see how it works, and to even develop an interface that will talk to the thing you reverse-engineered. But you can't sell the reverse-engineered thing legally. You can't distribute it for free. It belongs to the original author.kranium wrote:Bob...bob wrote: Norman, give it a rest. IP*/Robo* are _clearly_ clones of something, produced by decompiling something.
"If" (and that's a big 'if') Ippolit is the result of 'decompiling' (as you seem to somehow know as fact):
Decompiling is not 'wrong' or 'illegal' in any way...
it is a completely legitimate form of discovery...(according to the US Supreme Court)
You can look at it, and publish the ideas used inside. But not the actual code.
Correct. But you can't take something apart, then manufacture an identical copy, and sell that as your own. You can't even sell it period.
It's no different than taking something apart to see how it works...
(this is the epitome of human curiosity and the basis of enormous amounts of technological progress...)
You have a strange definition of "discovering". Discovering does not mean copying something verbatim...It's discovering 'ideas'...it is not 'copying'!
The source code has to be recreated, and doing this is a major major task that requires a seriously skilled engineer.
(and you know that!)
Same bullshit argument that keeps coming up. That is "translation" (going from machine language back to C) that is the same as the process of compiling (going from C back to assembly language). That is not original creativity. It is copying.
Not _nearly_ as pitiful as believing that copying by translation is original work.bob wrote:I thought it was "spot on" myself. Nicely done, HGM.hgm wrote:It is often difficult to spot clones. It is easy, however, to spot clowns...
?bob wrote: There are plenty of original programs. Just because you are incapable of writing something original doesn't mean others can't and haven't...
The fact that you feel the need to jump on the 'personal insult' bandwagon because I post something you disagree with is really sad...(pitiful).
Of course it doesn't. And that's irrelevant. Most don't have your severely warped sense of ethics and legality.
Writing what conforms to your strict academic definition of an 'original' program does not interest me...
Where, exactly?i.e. it is not the 'end all' and goal of chess programming...
my interest is working to improve existing code, pushing the envelope of chess playing programs...and I have successfully done that.
To those with no creativity, I won't disagree. But thankfully there _are_ many authors that do create new and unique literature that I enjoy reading. My favorite is Matt Reilly (scarecrow, area 7, Ice Station, Contest, etc.) Others are Clive Cussler, Andy McDermott, Patrick Robinson. And I have NEVER, not one time, found any example where one of them copied the storyline, much less the actual text, of one of the others, and tried to foist it off as their new work. Of course they do seem to have a strong ethical sense.
I (and many others) am not at all interested in suscribing to you narrow-minded and vain idea that the only worthwhile goal is to create something absolutely new, original, like a Hemmingway novel.
Sorry that's utter nonsense.
Sorry. Sometimes the truth hurts.
Besides, there are hundreds of absolutely mediocre ('crappy') and boring 'original' programs..who the hell needs another?
And to suggest I'm not capable is simply a low blow...
another of the many insults I've endured from the self-absorbed, ego-centric, puritanical, and contemptuous Talkchess establishment.
Certainly they are stronger. But Crafty was written by me. Robo was _copied_ from someone else. I'll take the original road myself. I find a sense of satisfaction in doing something original, rather than copying what someone else did and then claiming it as my own work. But you won't get that point, I am sure...
The work I've done on RobboLito, Igorrit, Fire, etc... speaks for itself.
It's unfortunate that you have no clue about (or refuse to recognize) the quality and quantity of work I've done on these (and other) now state-of-the-art programs
(all of which make Crafty look like a patzer BTW)
Nope. There are several that are now better than me at doing this. Doesn't detract from my enjoyment of doing it however. The ICGA asked us to investigate Rybka. We did. The rest will be exposed once they make a final ruling. Robo and friends will _never_ be welcome in any event, which is certainly a good thing. Other programs (Junior, Shredder, Stockfish, etc are going to continue to be welcomed in any event unless one of those is discovered to be a derivative work.
It seems clear that (as your career winds down), your only goal is to discredit as many programs and authors as possible in order to inflate and cement Crafty's legacy.
Norm
But you won't ever get that point...
