In other news, I'm working on Rybka. Rybka 5 will be ready sometime this year
computerchess community should boycott this product.
there are products that deserve the money they cost, such as hiarcs, shredder, junior.
Well if you depend on high quality analysis or play serious competitive chess then it would be a mistake to boycott Rybka 5. Do you agree?
i do disagree with your point of view. IMO one should support programmers who do not lie to their customers.
therefore i will buy shredder (if it is ever released, hiarcs or junior instead of rybka).
i bought rybka, but vas rajlich betrayed me.
i also bought fruit, with buying rybka i bought a clone of a program i had
bought earlier with buying fruit.
What seems like a fairy tale today may be reality tomorrow.
Here we have a fairy tale of the day after tomorrow....
> Regarding Strelka/IPPOLIT: as the author(s) seem to have typed their own source code (or code to generate this), how are they not "original" under your definition?
I doubt that all of that code was typed by hand. If it was, then sure, it's "original at the source code level".
> Do these Rybka versions [the ones that were cloned] have any additional creative content beyond the source code?
Lots of brilliant ideas!
Vas
I guess he is saying that because he is claiming he typed the fruit code into rybka so it is original by his definition.
just take a harry potter novel type it up yourself and you can sell it!
He insisted:
-------------
By sockmonkey Date 2012-01-09 17:43
I'm sorry, can you please clarify this? Does this mean, if I have source file A in one editor window, and my new source file B in another, and I type, by hand, the contents of A into B, that I've created software that's "original at the source code level"?
Thank you, Jeremy
-------------
------------
By Mark Date 2012-01-09 18:25
Yeah, the method of input shouldn't have anything to do with whether the code is original or not.
-------------
-------------
By Vasik Rajlich Date 2012-01-09 21:22 Indeed, if you want to be really precise then "typing" should be replaced with something like "manually inputting".
At this rate we'll have a page-long definition by tomorrow night.
Vas
-----------------
-----------------
By Vasik Rajlich Date 2012-01-09 21:20 No, of course not. My definition probably could use a few extra clauses for some of the edge cases.
Vas
----------------------
Pretty funny, but seems not a joke. He shouldn't have opened that thread at all, and, in the future, should ask for advice before saying anything, if he wants to sell things.
Harvey Williamson wrote:I guess he is saying that because he is claiming he typed the fruit code into rybka so it is original by his definition.
just take a harry potter novel type it up yourself and you can sell it!
He insisted:
-------------
By sockmonkey Date 2012-01-09 17:43
I'm sorry, can you please clarify this? Does this mean, if I have source file A in one editor window, and my new source file B in another, and I type, by hand, the contents of A into B, that I've created software that's "original at the source code level"?
Thank you, Jeremy
-------------
------------
By Mark Date 2012-01-09 18:25
Yeah, the method of input shouldn't have anything to do with whether the code is original or not.
-------------
-------------
By Vasik Rajlich Date 2012-01-09 21:22 Indeed, if you want to be really precise then "typing" should be replaced with something like "manually inputting".
At this rate we'll have a page-long definition by tomorrow night.
Vas
-----------------
-----------------
By Vasik Rajlich Date 2012-01-09 21:20 No, of course not. My definition probably could use a few extra clauses for some of the edge cases.
Vas
----------------------
Pretty funny, but seems not a joke. He shouldn't have opened that thread at all, and, in the future, should ask for advice before saying anything, if he wants to sell things.
Kai
I think that you should look at who is answering who in each case. It's not good to give the wrong impression.
Jeremy to Vas I'm sorry, can you please clarify this? Does this mean, if I have source file A in one editor window, and my new source file B in another, and I type, by hand, the contents of A into B, that I've created software that's "original at the source code level"?
Mark in response to Jeremy Yeah, the method of input shouldn't have anything to do with whether the code is original or not.
Vas in response to Mark Indeed, if you want to be really precise then "typing" should be replaced with something like "manually inputting".
At this rate we'll have a page-long definition by tomorrow night.
So Vas seems to be clarifying there that a better choice of words in Jeremy's question would have been manually inputting rather than typing by hand.
Then Vas responds to Jeremy's question No, of course not. My definition probably could use a few extra clauses for some of the edge cases.
Harvey Williamson wrote:I guess he is saying that because he is claiming he typed the fruit code into rybka so it is original by his definition.
just take a harry potter novel type it up yourself and you can sell it!
He insisted:
-------------
By sockmonkey Date 2012-01-09 17:43
I'm sorry, can you please clarify this? Does this mean, if I have source file A in one editor window, and my new source file B in another, and I type, by hand, the contents of A into B, that I've created software that's "original at the source code level"?
Thank you, Jeremy
-------------
------------
By Mark Date 2012-01-09 18:25
Yeah, the method of input shouldn't have anything to do with whether the code is original or not.
-------------
-------------
By Vasik Rajlich Date 2012-01-09 21:22 Indeed, if you want to be really precise then "typing" should be replaced with something like "manually inputting".
At this rate we'll have a page-long definition by tomorrow night.
Vas
-----------------
-----------------
By Vasik Rajlich Date 2012-01-09 21:20 No, of course not. My definition probably could use a few extra clauses for some of the edge cases.
Vas
----------------------
Pretty funny, but seems not a joke. He shouldn't have opened that thread at all, and, in the future, should ask for advice before saying anything, if he wants to sell things.
Kai
I think that you should look at who he is answering in each case.
Jeremy to Vas I'm sorry, can you please clarify this? Does this mean, if I have source file A in one editor window, and my new source file B in another, and I type, by hand, the contents of A into B, that I've created software that's "original at the source code level"?
Mark in response to Jeremy Yeah, the method of input shouldn't have anything to do with whether the code is original or not.
Vas in response to Mark Indeed, if you want to be really precise then "typing" should be replaced with something like "manually inputting".
At this rate we'll have a page-long definition by tomorrow night.
So Vas seems to be clarifying there that a better choice of words in Jeremy's question would have been manually inputting rather than typing by hand.
Then Vas responds to Jeremy's question No, of course not. My definition probably could use a few extra clauses for some of the edge cases.
Doesn't really matter, and the time stamps are there. Come on, he must shut up, otherwise he will endanger his R4 or 5 even legally, not some ICGA.
Graham Banks wrote:
Indeed, if you want to be really precise then "typing" should be replaced with something like "manually inputting".
and just how does that alter anything?
It doesn't, but his response to Jeremy's question was:
No, of course not. My definition probably could use a few extra clauses for some of the edge cases.
The response you quoted was his response to Mark, suggesting that "manually inputting" is more correct than "typing by hand". I guess manually inputting covers copy and paste as well as typing by hand.
Graham Banks wrote:
Indeed, if you want to be really precise then "typing" should be replaced with something like "manually inputting".
and just how does that alter anything?
It doesn't, but his response to Jeremy's question was:
No, of course not. My definition probably could use a few extra clauses for some of the edge cases.
It seems to me that he has completely clarified what he means by, 'original at the source code level'
Although some of his worshippers would still say he was not guilty if he said, 'I done it, it's a fair cop gov.'
Harvey Williamson wrote:It seems to me that he has completely clarified what he means by, 'original at the source code level'
Whereabouts? I am only interested in factual impartial reporting of information, that's all.
I doubt that all of that code was typed by hand. If it was, then sure, it's "original at the source code level".
Is what he said. I am sure you will say that does not count for whatever reason but he said it. I am sure you and Ed will say that is not a quote and then start a website to prove it is not a quote. If anyone else made a statement and then came back hours later and said in fact by hand = manual input they would be laughed at. But I guess he is allowed as many goes as he likes till he utters the version you want and then you will make yourself believe he never said the other versions.
Harvey Williamson wrote:It seems to me that he has completely clarified what he means by, 'original at the source code level'
Whereabouts? I am only interested in factual impartial reporting of information, that's all.
I doubt that all of that code was typed by hand. If it was, then sure, it's "original at the source code level".
Is what he said. I am sure you will say that does not count for whatever reason but he said it. I am sure you and Ed will say that is not a quote and then start a website to prove it is not a quote. If anyone else made a statement and then came back hours later and said in fact by hand = manual input they would be laughed at. But I guess he is allowed as many goes as he likes till he utters the version you want and then you will make yourself believe he never said the other versions.
Harvey - I have not offered an opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the Rybka ruling, only my concerns about how the process was conducted.
I do care though that those on both sides don't try putting words in each others mouths and putting a twist on what is posted.
