how far is too far: houdini for sell?

[Pablo Vazquez]

Hi Robert,

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.

[bob]

Mr. Houdart said self that he start from the source ippollit/robolito, so Houdini is based on Ippolit/robolito or whatever the names are, so far as i know was the source under the GPL , if houdini now based on ippolit why he don`t make the source public too, that is the rule of GPL, but he close the source and sell it now, that is against the rule of GPL.

1) No, Mr. Houdart did never say anything of that kind. Here is what Mr. Houdart says: "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." See the Houdini Web Site at http://www.cruxis.com/chess/houdini.htm .

2) No, Ippolit/robbolito is not source under GPL, see the other thread.

That makes two major false claims in one sentence.
Please stop spreading this kind of nonsense about Houdini.

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...

[Pablo Vazquez]

Mr. Houdart said self that he start from the source ippollit/robolito, so Houdini is based on Ippolit/robolito or whatever the names are, so far as i know was the source under the GPL , if houdini now based on ippolit why he don`t make the source public too, that is the rule of GPL, but he close the source and sell it now, that is against the rule of GPL.

1) No, Mr. Houdart did never say anything of that kind. Here is what Mr. Houdart says: "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." See the Houdini Web Site at http://www.cruxis.com/chess/houdini.htm .

2) No, Ippolit/robbolito is not source under GPL, see the other thread.

That makes two major false claims in one sentence.
Please stop spreading this kind of nonsense about Houdini.

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...

Yes, I just visited open-chess and saw this new evidence. Kingliveson was the person I was referring to in my previous post, the one who noticed the similarity between Houdini 1.0 and Robbolito 0.09 a year ago.

[Alexander Schmidt]

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

It is clear that Houdini is based on an engine of the Ipp*** family. As long as Ipp*** is not a prooven Rybka clone, Houdini is not illegal because you can't proof it is based on a GPL version.

We should go back to normal now. The facts are clear.

The Houdini fans should accept that it is a prooven clone and some don't like it, and the opponents should accept that some like to spend money in it and it is legal until the opposite is prooven.

Houdart should state on what Houdini is based to stop the flamewars.

Isn't that something everyone can agree?

Alex

[Laskos]

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

[Houdini]

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

[bob]

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...

[bob]

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

Let me repeat MY statement again. "copying ideas" is not the same as "copying code". We are AGAIN talking about "copying code here". You want to join Vas and claim that your "ideas" just happen to match up line for line with robolito's source? REALLY? You claimed, several times, "there is NO ip/etc code in Houdini." You want to stand by that story as it is unravelled procedure by procedure? Or do you want to correct it?

[Houdini]

Let me repeat MY statement again. "copying ideas" is not the same as "copying code". We are AGAIN talking about "copying code here". You want to join Vas and claim that your "ideas" just happen to match up line for line with robolito's source? REALLY? You claimed, several times, "there is NO ip/etc code in Houdini." You want to stand by that story as it is unravelled procedure by procedure? Or do you want to correct it?

No, there is nothing to correct.
You know, I cannot stop you from believing whatever it is that you want to believe. I can only say thank you for keeping Houdini in the spot light.

[Laskos]

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