how far is too far: houdini for sell?

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: bob, hgm, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
User avatar
marcelk
Posts: 348
Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: how far is too far: houdini for sell?

Post by marcelk » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:41 pm

rodolfoleoni wrote:But, as I read in another thread in these days, there was a version of Robbolito which was public domain, not GPLed, and work with Houdini could have been started with that Robbo.

Not taking any part in the conflict, I'd only like to understand things better.... :)
Assuming that 1. the Robbo authors are not Americans and 2. still alive, the following is likely true: There are versions that are stated to be public domain, but legally these versions still aren't public domain after just such statement (except possibly in the USA) and thus not free of all rights: most notably the right of being attributed as author is still with the original authors.

The 'public domain' attribute means that it is free of all rights. Assuming that the RobboLito authors are European or Russian, they don't have a possibility to forfeit their moral right of attribution. Also not by declaring such. That right is non-transferrable. It is therefore practically impossible, in these countries, to place something in the PD when alive.

mwyoung
Posts: 1648
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 8:00 pm

Re: how far is too far: houdini for sell?

Post by mwyoung » Tue Oct 11, 2011 5:48 pm

bob wrote:
Uri Blass wrote:
ozziejoe wrote:I thought there was considerable evidence that houdini was a close derivative of rybka. Now it is for sell? Whatever your view of rybka (legal or derivitive), there is 0 doubt about Houdini being unoriginal. sigh.

If only we could see a return of crafty to number 1, or the program of any honest programmer.

Plagiarism rewarded.

Best
J
I did not buy houdini but I see no problem with buying non original programs.
Ok to buy "stolen merchandise" as well? I mean, YOU didn't actually steal it...
Wait, you might get charged with "receiving stolen merchandise" anyway... "caveat emptor".
Don't give us the BS about you not having anything against Robert Houdart. It is clear why you took the thread down after Roger said the thread could stay up.

"I don't even KNOW him, so there is no way to like/dislike him".

But you know him well enough to suggest he stole code......

Bob you think he stole code. So you will use your power as moderator to punish him. Even if this means overriding the other moderators .... Yes or No?

Your actions say YES.

mwyoung
Posts: 1648
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 8:00 pm

Re: how far is too far: houdini for sell?

Post by mwyoung » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:01 pm

Laskos wrote:
bob wrote:
Laskos wrote:
bob wrote:
Laskos wrote:
ozziejoe wrote:I thought there was considerable evidence that houdini was a close derivative of rybka. Now it is for sell? Whatever your view of rybka (legal or derivitive), there is 0 doubt about Houdini being unoriginal. sigh.

If only we could see a return of crafty to number 1, or the program of any honest programmer.

Plagiarism rewarded.

Best
J
Rybka is for sell even after the ICGA ruling. Besides that, no one proved in any legal way that Ipppos are illegal. Besides that, no one proved in any legal way that Houdini is a derivative of anything, or more than that, illegal. In fact, it's easier for Houdart to sue you for your above words, than you can sue him.

If you like Crafty more, then don't buy Houdini and go to the download page of Crafty.

Kai
If you go to open-chess, you will find some comparisons between ippolit and houdini 1.0 source. I think that pretty much nails this issue down solidly. Houdini is not, and never has been original code...
This is circumstantial evidence, and, in fact, I have mine too, that's not the point, our basic judgement seems the same. But the evidence is not only circumstantial, it's for a possible derivative of a possible re-engineered derivative of an unknown status, of a possible clone, as stated by ICGA, which is still available legally to buy. And you claim that someone cannot buy Houdini? I guess you need a good lawyer to make your defense against Houdart.

Kai
I don't follow your term "circumstantial"? There is actual RE source from Houdini compared to robo*. I don't think the "buying" part is particularly relevant, but copyright law / GPL certainly is... That's where the "rest of the story" (RIP Paul Harvey) will be told...
The "buying" part is the most relevant. Recently Apple sued Samsung for cloning, won, and that model of Samsung is not sold anymore in Europe, where the court's jurisdiction is. Rybka _is_ legal as long as Vas can legally sell it. Did you won a single court case against Vas? I bet it's unwise for you to claim even that Vas cannot sell Rybka, much more so in the case of a claimed derivative of a claimed derivative of an ICGA clone which is legally sold. With the circumstantial evidence you (we) have, it's 100% that you cannot win anything against Houdart even in Zimbabwe courts, you have only to lose.

Kai
Bob has his mind made up, and is now using his power as moderator to try and punish Robert Houdart. That is not his job as a moderator. He is not the chess police. What he is becoming is a disgrace. IMO

Terry McCracken
Posts: 15844
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:16 am
Location: Canada

Re: how far is too far: houdini for sell?

Post by Terry McCracken » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:09 pm

mwyoung wrote:
Laskos wrote:
bob wrote:
Laskos wrote:
bob wrote:
Laskos wrote:
ozziejoe wrote:I thought there was considerable evidence that houdini was a close derivative of rybka. Now it is for sell? Whatever your view of rybka (legal or derivitive), there is 0 doubt about Houdini being unoriginal. sigh.

If only we could see a return of crafty to number 1, or the program of any honest programmer.

Plagiarism rewarded.

Best
J
Rybka is for sell even after the ICGA ruling. Besides that, no one proved in any legal way that Ipppos are illegal. Besides that, no one proved in any legal way that Houdini is a derivative of anything, or more than that, illegal. In fact, it's easier for Houdart to sue you for your above words, than you can sue him.

If you like Crafty more, then don't buy Houdini and go to the download page of Crafty.

Kai
If you go to open-chess, you will find some comparisons between ippolit and houdini 1.0 source. I think that pretty much nails this issue down solidly. Houdini is not, and never has been original code...
This is circumstantial evidence, and, in fact, I have mine too, that's not the point, our basic judgement seems the same. But the evidence is not only circumstantial, it's for a possible derivative of a possible re-engineered derivative of an unknown status, of a possible clone, as stated by ICGA, which is still available legally to buy. And you claim that someone cannot buy Houdini? I guess you need a good lawyer to make your defense against Houdart.

Kai
I don't follow your term "circumstantial"? There is actual RE source from Houdini compared to robo*. I don't think the "buying" part is particularly relevant, but copyright law / GPL certainly is... That's where the "rest of the story" (RIP Paul Harvey) will be told...
The "buying" part is the most relevant. Recently Apple sued Samsung for cloning, won, and that model of Samsung is not sold anymore in Europe, where the court's jurisdiction is. Rybka _is_ legal as long as Vas can legally sell it. Did you won a single court case against Vas? I bet it's unwise for you to claim even that Vas cannot sell Rybka, much more so in the case of a claimed derivative of a claimed derivative of an ICGA clone which is legally sold. With the circumstantial evidence you (we) have, it's 100% that you cannot win anything against Houdart even in Zimbabwe courts, you have only to lose.

Kai
Bob has his mind made up, and is now using his power as moderator to try and punish Robert Houdart. That is not his job as a moderator. He is not the chess police. What he is becoming is a disgrace. IMO
Then you're clued out or in denial. Take your pick.
Terry McCracken

Terry McCracken
Posts: 15844
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:16 am
Location: Canada

Re: how far is too far: houdini for sell?

Post by Terry McCracken » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:10 pm

mwyoung wrote:
bob wrote:
Uri Blass wrote:
ozziejoe wrote:I thought there was considerable evidence that houdini was a close derivative of rybka. Now it is for sell? Whatever your view of rybka (legal or derivitive), there is 0 doubt about Houdini being unoriginal. sigh.

If only we could see a return of crafty to number 1, or the program of any honest programmer.

Plagiarism rewarded.

Best
J
I did not buy houdini but I see no problem with buying non original programs.
Ok to buy "stolen merchandise" as well? I mean, YOU didn't actually steal it...
Wait, you might get charged with "receiving stolen merchandise" anyway... "caveat emptor".
Don't give us the BS about you not having anything against Robert Houdart. It is clear why you took the thread down after Roger said the thread could stay up.

"I don't even KNOW him, so there is no way to like/dislike him".

But you know him well enough to suggest he stole code......

Bob you think he stole code. So you will use your power as moderator to punish him. Even if this means overriding the other moderators .... Yes or No?

Your actions say YES.
Do you know what your actions say?
Terry McCracken

Gerd Isenberg
Posts: 2128
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:47 pm
Location: Hattingen, Germany

Re: how far is too far: houdini for sell?

Post by Gerd Isenberg » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:13 pm

bob wrote:You should go to open-chess and see the side-by-side comparison between houdini 1.0 and ip/robo. Then, maybe, you'd stop claiming "complete originality" and get back to facts as you ORIGINALLY stated them...
Robert already replied in OpenChess on the side-by-side comparison you mentioned (I guess) by kingliveson:
You show a code snippet from the exact same material table initialization routine as Lance Perkins, and then, in exactly the same way as Lance Perkins, you proceed to a gross and unsupported generalization.

To return to the WCCC topic at hand, let me repeat what I wrote above: the day that Houdini enters the WCCC (hopefully next time it gets organized in Europe), I will duly submit the Houdini source code to the WCCC tournament director, and he or she will have all the liberty and time to compare the source code to Ippolit, Stockfish, Crafty, Robbolito, Ivanhoe etc.
How do you comment on that what I wrote in cpw on Houdini?
The idea to index the material table in the same manner by combined counters of queens, rooks, light and dark bishops, knights and pawns, and to calculate piece counters from that table-index by a sequence of mod/div operations by {2,2,3,3,2,2,2,2,3,3,9,9} might be considered obvious after studying the mentioned source code, and if applied that scheme, there is hardly anything to avoid a sequence of almost identical x86 machine code with same constants for reciprocal multiplication.
Gerd

Frank Quisinsky
Posts: 4852
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 6:16 pm
Location: Trier, Germany
Contact:

Re: how far is too far: houdini for sell?

Post by Frank Quisinsky » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:15 pm

Hi Richard,

no doubt about it.

What should a rating list do with it in your opinion?

SWCR based on user wishes. I got a lot of mails to this topic and the most wishes that I continue with SWCR. Most had written that it's not important what the programmers do - open letter -, that Houdini is a clone or not, Rybka is a clone or not.

Strong available programs should be play.
Most related opinion what I got via mail.

An user sent me 500 EUR for commercial engines with the wish that the SWCR will be available next year too. I sent the money back.

Situation isn't easy, I like my SWCR have much problems with different programs but I can understand that users have the opinion a rating list should be complete. All available engines should be test.

Best
Frank
I like computer chess!

mwyoung
Posts: 1648
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 8:00 pm

Re: how far is too far: houdini for sell?

Post by mwyoung » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:34 pm

Terry McCracken wrote:
mwyoung wrote:
Laskos wrote:
bob wrote:
Laskos wrote:
bob wrote:
Laskos wrote:
ozziejoe wrote:I thought there was considerable evidence that houdini was a close derivative of rybka. Now it is for sell? Whatever your view of rybka (legal or derivitive), there is 0 doubt about Houdini being unoriginal. sigh.

If only we could see a return of crafty to number 1, or the program of any honest programmer.

Plagiarism rewarded.

Best
J
Rybka is for sell even after the ICGA ruling. Besides that, no one proved in any legal way that Ipppos are illegal. Besides that, no one proved in any legal way that Houdini is a derivative of anything, or more than that, illegal. In fact, it's easier for Houdart to sue you for your above words, than you can sue him.

If you like Crafty more, then don't buy Houdini and go to the download page of Crafty.

Kai
If you go to open-chess, you will find some comparisons between ippolit and houdini 1.0 source. I think that pretty much nails this issue down solidly. Houdini is not, and never has been original code...
This is circumstantial evidence, and, in fact, I have mine too, that's not the point, our basic judgement seems the same. But the evidence is not only circumstantial, it's for a possible derivative of a possible re-engineered derivative of an unknown status, of a possible clone, as stated by ICGA, which is still available legally to buy. And you claim that someone cannot buy Houdini? I guess you need a good lawyer to make your defense against Houdart.

Kai
I don't follow your term "circumstantial"? There is actual RE source from Houdini compared to robo*. I don't think the "buying" part is particularly relevant, but copyright law / GPL certainly is... That's where the "rest of the story" (RIP Paul Harvey) will be told...
The "buying" part is the most relevant. Recently Apple sued Samsung for cloning, won, and that model of Samsung is not sold anymore in Europe, where the court's jurisdiction is. Rybka _is_ legal as long as Vas can legally sell it. Did you won a single court case against Vas? I bet it's unwise for you to claim even that Vas cannot sell Rybka, much more so in the case of a claimed derivative of a claimed derivative of an ICGA clone which is legally sold. With the circumstantial evidence you (we) have, it's 100% that you cannot win anything against Houdart even in Zimbabwe courts, you have only to lose.

Kai
Bob has his mind made up, and is now using his power as moderator to try and punish Robert Houdart. That is not his job as a moderator. He is not the chess police. What he is becoming is a disgrace. IMO
Then you're clued out or in denial. Take your pick.
Really,

Then maybe you can tell me the person who Robert H. stole code from, and if the person you name is making the same charge that Robert stole code.............Waiting............

Gino Figlio
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:10 am
Location: Lamar, Colorado, USA

Re: how far is too far: houdini for sell?

Post by Gino Figlio » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:39 pm

Houdini wrote:
bob wrote:Then, maybe, you'd stop claiming "complete originality" and get back to facts as you ORIGINALLY stated them...
Apparently every of my answers generates a diarrhea of further posts with factual mistakes and unproven claims, by people that don't read what I actually write, and instead use their fantasy...

Let me repeat one final time that I have ALWAYS said the following:
"Without many ideas and techniques from the open source chess engines Ippolit and Stockfish, Houdini would not nearly be as strong as it is now."
If that for you is a "claim of complete originality", so be it.

Robert
Robert,

Don't worry about the noise. Your program will be bought by thousands of correspondence chess players in the next few years.
Continue to provide the value and everything else will fall into place.

Gino Figlio

mwyoung
Posts: 1648
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 8:00 pm

Re: how far is too far: houdini for sell?

Post by mwyoung » Tue Oct 11, 2011 6:44 pm

Terry McCracken wrote:
mwyoung wrote:
bob wrote:
Uri Blass wrote:
ozziejoe wrote:I thought there was considerable evidence that houdini was a close derivative of rybka. Now it is for sell? Whatever your view of rybka (legal or derivitive), there is 0 doubt about Houdini being unoriginal. sigh.

If only we could see a return of crafty to number 1, or the program of any honest programmer.

Plagiarism rewarded.

Best
J
I did not buy houdini but I see no problem with buying non original programs.
Ok to buy "stolen merchandise" as well? I mean, YOU didn't actually steal it...
Wait, you might get charged with "receiving stolen merchandise" anyway... "caveat emptor".
Don't give us the BS about you not having anything against Robert Houdart. It is clear why you took the thread down after Roger said the thread could stay up.

"I don't even KNOW him, so there is no way to like/dislike him".

But you know him well enough to suggest he stole code......

Bob you think he stole code. So you will use your power as moderator to punish him. Even if this means overriding the other moderators .... Yes or No?

Your actions say YES.
Do you know what your actions say?
Yes, I am sick of the witch hunts and the BS that goes with it on CCC. You clowns are bored with Rybka so you need a new target....

Post Reply