hgm wrote:But that really tells it all, doesn't it? The FSF, being copyright holder of Fruit, would certainly take legal action on such obvious infringement on their rights as source copying in a public-domain project.
Therefore it stands to reason we assume Robbolito not to contain such code, in the absense of proof to the contrary.
Yes most likely....
Now the Question is why are people attacking Houdini and Robert Houdart, when it has not been shown to be illegal.
My theory is they got board bashing Rybka, so they want a new target to bash. Seems to be a need to gin up hate on someone.
No one is attacking him...it's not personal.
On then contrary it's quite a simple matter:
Robbolito 0.09 and 0.085g were released under a GPL (license).
Copying GPL source code for a 'closed source' program is illegal,
and it is becoming clear that this is what happened, ... the proof is steadily accumulating.
It's also clear that he is being evasive, sometimes outright lying, and often 'word dancing' concerning this issue.
Didn't we just go through that for 5 years with Vas?
...let's demand the truth and not let it happen again.
Norman, I must say (and it is a genuinely positive point), that when you were caught doing the same thing, you :
1- never denied it, and, at the contrary, admitted it;
2- put an end to this infraction;
3- refunded your customers.
When you compare this with what happened with Rybka and Houdini, this put your actions into a much more positive perspective. I don't know if you care about my opinion on this matter, but I say it anyway: this erases a whole deal of your past errors.
Very kind of you to say Julien...
I do care very much about the many opinions expressed here, by you and everyone...far more than you realize.
That's why I had no problem stopping development immediately when the community raised issues with my releases.
Last edited by kranium on Wed Oct 12, 2011 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
kranium wrote:
Very kind of you to say Julien...
I do care very much about the opinions expressed here...by everyone...far more than you know.
That's why I had no problem stopping development immediately when the community raised issues with my releases.
And that was my way to say I forget it. Everyone makes mistakes.
hgm wrote:But that really tells it all, doesn't it? The FSF, being copyright holder of Fruit, would certainly take legal action on such obvious infringement on their rights as source copying in a public-domain project.
Therefore it stands to reason we assume Robbolito not to contain such code, in the absense of proof to the contrary.
Yes most likely....
Now the Question is why are people attacking Houdini and Robert Houdart, when it has not been shown to be illegal.
My theory is they got board bashing Rybka, so they want a new target to bash. Seems to be a need to gin up hate on someone.
No one is attacking him...it's not personal.
On then contrary it's quite a simple matter:
Robbolito 0.09 and 0.085g were released under a GPL (license).
Copying GPL source code for a 'closed source' program is illegal,
and it is becoming clear that this is what happened, ... the proof is steadily accumulating.
It's also clear that he is being evasive, sometimes outright lying, and often 'word dancing' concerning this issue.
Didn't we just go through that for 5 years with Vas?
...let's demand the truth and not let it happen again.
I am all good with it until a moderators starts suggesting Robert Houdart is a criminal. And if you buy his product you are commiting a crime. Not personal. Looks like someone is trying to hurt Robert Houdart's legal for sale chess product to me.
And I don't know why you want to defend these people, you do know you also have a target on your back with these people.
kranium wrote:
Well the 1st thing I can think of regarding 'bugs' is that the original Robbolito's UCI output used long long integers and was causing issues.
Basically I fixed it by type defining an unsigned 64-bit integer, and called it I64u...
I thought you meant bugs
HGM's subsequent question confines Norman to portions of Robbo not necessarilly affected by bugfixes. Is that hard to understand ?
BTW, Norman's type definition that RH has copied is undeniable proof of "copy & paste".
ok. I haven't read hgm's last question thoroughly, my fault, sorry. My point simply was that i wouldn't call a hack to make something work under non-compliant compiler a bugfix. Considering "undeniable" copy and paste, %I64u is not unusual for Windows programs working with 64-bit integers.
Last edited by mar on Wed Oct 12, 2011 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
hgm wrote:But that really tells it all, doesn't it? The FSF, being copyright holder of Fruit, would certainly take legal action on such obvious infringement on their rights as source copying in a public-domain project.
Therefore it stands to reason we assume Robbolito not to contain such code, in the absense of proof to the contrary.
Yes most likely....
Now the Question is why are people attacking Houdini and Robert Houdart, when it has not been shown to be illegal.
My theory is they got board bashing Rybka, so they want a new target to bash. Seems to be a need to gin up hate on someone.
No one is attacking him...it's not personal.
On then contrary it's quite a simple matter:
Robbolito 0.09 and 0.085g were released under a GPL (license).
Copying GPL source code for a 'closed source' program is illegal,
and it is becoming clear that this is what happened, ... the proof is steadily accumulating.
It's also clear that he is being evasive, sometimes outright lying, and often 'word dancing' concerning this issue.
Didn't we just go through that for 5 years with Vas?
...let's demand the truth and not let it happen again.
I am all good with it until a moderators starts suggesting Robert Houdart is a criminal. And if you buy his product you are commiting a crime. Not personal. Looks like someone is trying to hurt Robert Houdart's legal for sale chess product to me.
And I don't know why you want to defend these people, you do know you also have a target on your back with these people.
I believe Robert Houdart should be held to same standard as Vas R., myself, or anyone else for that matter.
As for me having a target on my back...my vilification has been utter and complete for some time now, I'm quite used to it.
The bitter taste in my mouth does become pronounced, however, when I see many in the community defending the same violations for which I was condemned.
That I will never understand.
hgm wrote:But that really tells it all, doesn't it? The FSF, being copyright holder of Fruit, would certainly take legal action on such obvious infringement on their rights as source copying in a public-domain project.
Therefore it stands to reason we assume Robbolito not to contain such code, in the absense of proof to the contrary.
Yes most likely....
Now the Question is why are people attacking Houdini and Robert Houdart, when it has not been shown to be illegal.
My theory is they got board bashing Rybka, so they want a new target to bash. Seems to be a need to gin up hate on someone.
No one is attacking him...it's not personal.
On then contrary it's quite a simple matter:
Robbolito 0.09 and 0.085g were released under a GPL (license).
Copying GPL source code for a 'closed source' program is illegal,
and it is becoming clear that this is what happened, ... the proof is steadily accumulating.
It's also clear that he is being evasive, sometimes outright lying, and often 'word dancing' concerning this issue.
Didn't we just go through that for 5 years with Vas?
...let's demand the truth and not let it happen again.
I am all good with it until a moderators starts suggesting Robert Houdart is a criminal. And if you buy his product you are commiting a crime. Not personal. Looks like someone is trying to hurt Robert Houdart's legal for sale chess product to me.
And I don't know why you want to defend these people, you do know you also have a target on your back with these people.
I believe Robert Houdart should be held to same standard as Vas R., myself, or anyone else for that matter.
As for me having a target on my back...my vilification has been utter and complete for some time now, I'm quite used to it.
The bitter taste in my mouth does become pronounced, however, when I see many in the community defending the same violations for which I was condemned.
That I will never understand.
You can not hold Robert Houdart to the same standard. Robert Houdart never signed anything to say his program was original. Robert Houdart never played in computer chess tournaments. And Robert Houdart is not subject to ICGA rulings as was Vas.
Robert Houdart like it or not has produced the strongest and most used chess engine by chess pro's on the planet. Robert Houdart has a legal right to sell his product.
Dave Mitchell wrote:Wasn't Hyatt's recent point that Robolito itself had code stolen from Rybka and possibly Fruit as well? So Robolitot never was public domain.
I believe a copyright can be lost if it is openly infringed upon, and then not defended. Certainly don't know the details, but has anyone started legal action against Robolito or any other alleged infringers?
If the copyright is "sacrificed" by non-defense, that makes the whole "clone" issue rather moot, doesn't it?
No one has ever claimed ownership of code that Bob Hyatt says Robert Houdart stole.
Bob Hyatt suggest Robert Houdart is a criminal and Houdini 2.0 is not legal, and anyone buying Houdini 2.0 could be charge with a crime.
Bob Hyatt has no backing to make such a claim, as no one with standing has every claimed Robert Houdart stole their code.
Fact: Houdini 2.0 is a legal for sale chess product.
Fact: No one claiming ownership of code that Bob Hyatt said was stolen has every come forward. To make a charge of code theft or copyright violation against Robert Houdart and Houdini.
Fact. I said "IF robolito is proven to have either (a) fruit code or (b) rybka code then (c) houdini is a copyright infringement. Fruit code is not public domain, it is copyrighted and released under GPL. Rybka code is not public domain and is copyrighted by Vas. It is a near-certainty that robolito came from Rybka 3. Which means it likely contains some of the code Vas added. It also likely contains fruit code that Vas copied."
that is my statement. The IF has a 99%+ probability of being true. If it is, the rest is 100%.
kranium wrote:
Well the 1st thing I can think of regarding 'bugs' is that the original Robbolito's UCI output used long long integers and was causing issues.
Basically I fixed it by type defining an unsigned 64-bit integer, and called it I64u...
I thought you meant bugs
HGM's subsequent question confines Norman to portions of Robbo not necessarilly affected by bugfixes. Is that hard to understand ?
BTW, Norman's type definition that RH has copied is undeniable proof of "copy & paste".
ok. I haven't read hgm's last question thoroughly, my fault, sorry. My point simply was that i wouldn't call a hack to make something work under non-compliant compiler a bugfix. Considering "undeniable" copy and paste, %I64u is not unusual for Windows programs working with 64-bit integers.
Hi Martin,
Good point, but I64u might be less common than you may think, for ex: the only other source code I can find anywhere with 'I64u' defined is Fruit and family.
and there's more to it than just the presence of a typedef called I64u...
In my GPL'd Robbolitos I also re-arranged the order of variables (to become more standard/UCI compliant):
kranium wrote:
Well the 1st thing I can think of regarding 'bugs' is that the original Robbolito's UCI output used long long integers and was causing issues.
Basically I fixed it by type defining an unsigned 64-bit integer, and called it I64u...
I thought you meant bugs
HGM's subsequent question confines Norman to portions of Robbo not necessarilly affected by bugfixes. Is that hard to understand ?
BTW, Norman's type definition that RH has copied is undeniable proof of "copy & paste".
ok. I haven't read hgm's last question thoroughly, my fault, sorry. My point simply was that i wouldn't call a hack to make something work under non-compliant compiler a bugfix. Considering "undeniable" copy and paste, %I64u is not unusual for Windows programs working with 64-bit integers.
Martin,
It might be less common than you may think, for ex: the only other source code I can find with 'I64u' defined is Fruit and family.
and there's more to it than just the presence of a typedef called I64u...
In my GPL'd Robbolitos I also re-arranged the order of variables (to become more standard/UCI compliant):
I myself use %I64d and it will get dumped soon as I had problems with this nonstandard Microsoft format string extension when I tried to compile under OSX. VS2008 express seems to handle long long fine now (correct me if I'm wrong). So using %I64u or d or i or whatever certainly doesn't automatically mean a connectivity to Fruit/Robbo/whatever. In fact, I learned %I64d at work several years ago. That was EVC4.0 I think. Bad habits die hard.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating RH here.
