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............
The Hackers that stole from Rybka to make their perverse point. The aliases are listed at their site.
Any other questions?
This does not answer anything......
Who's code got stolen by Robert Houdart? Give us names if you know them....Waiting
Name(s) of the owner of the code Robert Houdart stole. ___________
Is the person you name that owns the code. Making a charge against Robert Houdart that he stole his code?
Yes or No _________
If you can not answer the questions, then I don't see a problem for Robert Houdart.
Still waiting......
Are you really this dense? You can wait 'till the cows come home for all I care.
Terry don't get all defensive because you could not answer the questions.
Everyone knew you could not give any names because their are no names to give.
well as far as I know the other thread is moved/deleted. Anyway, if I got you right in that thread then Houdini in the beginning started with the source of Robbolito 0.85f1 which is according to it's license in the public domain. Can you confirm that ?
Greets, Thomas
The actual version it was derived from was one of Norman's versions (either 0.085g3 or 0.09, I don't know). This was already discovered more than a year ago in a thread in open-chess.org.
Hi Pablo,
well, that was my opinion too, but Robert denys that completely... In fact we will never get the source, so we will never know for sure. It's a bit like the Rybka-Fruit case, a lot of indices, but the author completely denies...
Greets, Thomas
At least Houdini's author bothers to answer and communicate every now and then....Vasik was silent like a dead rotten fish....
Dr.D
you must be a big fan from Harry Houdini.
Harry made the same you do!
But his time is over and will never comeback, not with your engine and not with your name.
I think you should learn it.
More interesting are own ideas as to try to copy Harry.
The different between Harry and yourself:
Each people know on it what Harry do ...
But unfortunately, people which understand a bit from computer chess don't know that you are not useing IPP sources.
With other words:
A bad copy!
Best
Frank
Last edited by Frank Quisinsky on Tue Oct 11, 2011 10:47 pm, edited 3 times in total.
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............
The Hackers that stole from Rybka to make their perverse point. The aliases are listed at their site.
Any other questions?
This does not answer anything......
Who's code got stolen by Robert Houdart? Give us names if you know them....Waiting
Name(s) of the owner of the code Robert Houdart stole. ___________
Is the person you name that owns the code. Making a charge against Robert Houdart that he stole his code?
Yes or No _________
If you can not answer the questions, then I don't see a problem for Robert Houdart.
Still waiting......
Are you really this dense? You can wait 'till the cows come home for all I care.
Terry don't get all defensive because you could not answer the questions.
Everyone knew you could not give any names because their are no names to give.
Their real names no...very few would know who they are and they're not telling me. However, this has been gone over and thought it clear where rights are and even anonymous authors have to be given credit and of course these turkeys ripped off Rybka which has derivative code from Fruit/Crafty. This is a big problem.
rodolfoleoni wrote:
Right, that's absurd! I don't think Robert Houdart used that nickname for building Robbo. It must be someone else.... But the clear point is: can an anonymous author claim GPL rights and/or moral rights?
Yes (the attribution rights, that is). And will they succeed? There is no prior jurisdiction of someone disclaiming their own faulty public domain statement so that is 100% speculation. It might or it might not succeed. Reason it might not succeed is that it seems rather pointless for someone anonymous to claim attribution to his pseudonym, so a judge could throw it out as frivolous. Therefore the author would have to disclose his real identity and proof that he is indeed the author and then claim authorship under his real name. Will we see that? Of course not because there is no economic gain to it, those rights are still forfeited. We might see a case if the author is some brilliant and deranged billionaire scientist who has been plotting this computer chess controversy all along on his secret island in the pacific ocean as a side project besides working on his nuclear stun gun he is developing for an evil plan for world domination. Until that time, Houdini is ok for sale.
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.
From the charter:
Once a member gains access to the message board, he may read all messages and post new or response messages with the proviso that these new or response messages:
........................................................ Are not flagrant commercial exhortations.
Houdini wrote:
It was a logical step to combine the best GUI (Aquarium) with the strongest engine (Houdini), Houdini Aquarium is the result.
As there is no more evidence that Aquarium is “the best GUI” than there is that Pepsi is the best Cola, when either claim is made by the manufacturer, it can be classified in the “flagrant commercial exhortations” category
Houdini wrote:
Houdini Aquarium is available at a (in my opinion) very attractive price,
This is an advertising statement, how else can it be classified, when made by the manufacturer? As such, it also falls within the category of "flagrant commercial exhortations".
Houdini wrote:
I know of no no other hobby in which you can obtain the world's best for so little money.
What he admits to be his opinion is tendentious and when made by the manufacturer of the product, can only be considered to be an advertisement that, once again, falls within the category of “flagrant commercial exhortations”.
Three flagrant exhortations within a 5 sentence announcement. A bit rich.
Roger Brown the moderator had already ruled on the above and said Robert Houdart had not done anything that other programmers has not done on CCC. And the post could stay up.
Roger is moderator only not an advacate against Houdini.
The fact is Bob Hyatt is a strong advacate against houdini and is clearly bias against Houdini and Robert Houdart. So he used his power as moderator to try and punish Robert Houdart. Over the ruling of moderator Roger Brown.....
I note that you don’t dispute my analysis. I am not biased against Houdart and I would also have wanted to remove his thread, on the basis of that analysis. As a mod on CTF, I saw the PM that Hyatt sent to Roger Brown referring to the issue and there was nothing wrong with it. The last time that I looked at page 2 of CCC, the thread in question was back in place, albeit locked.
Perhaps you should take an objective look at your own outpourings over the last 48 hours.
I don't dispute your analysis and I find you to be fair. but the fact is Roger Brown ruled one way, and Roger is also not bias.
I don't like it when a moderator is being an advacate like Bob Hyatt. And attacks another member, that is also against the charter. Bob Hyatt said he also killed the thread because it was another flame war over Houdini.
But what is Bob Hyatt doing in this thread, is Bob Hyatt not fanning the flames by suggesting Robert Houdart stole code and Houdini is not legal, and if you buy Houdini you could be charged with recieving stolen merchandise.
rodolfoleoni wrote:
Right, that's absurd! I don't think Robert Houdart used that nickname for building Robbo. It must be someone else.... But the clear point is: can an anonymous author claim GPL rights and/or moral rights?
Yes (the attribution rights, that is). And will they succeed? There is no prior jurisdiction of someone disclaiming their own faulty public domain statement so that is 100% speculation. It might or it might not succeed. Reason it might not succeed is that it seems rather pointless for someone anonymous to claim attribution to his pseudonym, so a judge could throw it out as frivolous. Therefore the author would have to disclose his real identity and proof that he is indeed the author and then claim authorship under his real name. Will we see that? Of course not because there is no economic gain to it, those rights are still forfeited. We might see a case if the author is some brilliant and deranged billionaire scientist who has been plotting this computer chess controversy all along on his secret island in the pacific ocean as a side project besides working on his nuclear stun gun he is developing for an evil plan for world domination. Until that time, Houdini is ok for sale.
rodolfoleoni wrote:
Right, that's absurd! I don't think Robert Houdart used that nickname for building Robbo. It must be someone else.... But the clear point is: can an anonymous author claim GPL rights and/or moral rights?
Yes (the attribution rights, that is). And will they succeed? There is no prior jurisdiction of someone disclaiming their own faulty public domain statement so that is 100% speculation. It might or it might not succeed. Reason it might not succeed is that it seems rather pointless for someone anonymous to claim attribution to his pseudonym, so a judge could throw it out as frivolous. Therefore the author would have to disclose his real identity and proof that he is indeed the author and then claim authorship under his real name. Will we see that? Of course not because there is no economic gain to it, those rights are still forfeited. We might see a case if the author is some brilliant and deranged billionaire scientist who has been plotting this computer chess controversy all along on his secret island in the pacific ocean as a side project besides working on his nuclear stun gun he is developing for an evil plan for world domination. Until that time, Houdini is ok for sale.
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".
Non original is not the same as stolen and
I see no proof that houdini is illegal.
Hello everyone,
I wanted to ask a question, beyond all controversy...
Currently, the various leagues and tournaments are "orphans" of the strongest engines (this outside of any consideration of their legitimacy). The current World Champion is much weaker than Rybka, Houdini and all the enigines of Ippolit series... What value have these tournaments, today? Once they represented "the best of the best"... But now?
This is a time of great confusion for all fans...
I believe that, in the name of a purity - that maybe there is, and probably there never was! - is being just doing a lot of confusion. Before was crucified Vas that, like it or not, has given much to the world of chess engines (and yes, it is true also gained a lot!), and now gets another witch at the stake... All this is rather bleak.
One final thought,
beyond the moral aspects, it seems that the code of Ippolit is different from that Rybka3. In addition, programs Ippolit series are NOT covered by the GPL(*) and its author is unknown. I believe that Mr. Houdart (which I do not know personally, and with whom I have no ties!) has achieved an entirely legal action.
(*) Some versions of RobboLito, were declared "GPL", but who did it, had no legal right to do this. In fact, he was not the author of the original software, but he made only a few minor changes, among other things, not significant.
