What you call "evidence" has indeed been presented and discussed, but *not* been widely accepted. You know that but ignore it, and continue giving the false impression as if everything were settled. Your repeated statement that "Rybka is a Fruit derivative" is highly exaggerated. Just as you refer to that movie above, I could say that "the link is posted, the evidence is discussed, doubts are raised, doubts are not discussed but simply called 'wrong', silence, someone asks for evidence again, the link is posted, the evidence is discussed, doubts are raised, ..." until the doubt-raisers get tired and give up. See the point? How is your view different from that?bob wrote:This is just like the movie "Groundhog Day". Someone asks for the evidence, the link is posted, the evidence is discussed, then someone asks for the evidence, the link is posted, the evidence is discussed, repeat until you get tired and give up seems to be the point here.Robert Flesher wrote:Sean Evans wrote:My first question is:Rolf wrote: And finally, where is the court case if Vas violated anything at all? Who are you to defame Vas although there is no sign for any juridical issue. Is this what you understand under the famous moral nobody shall be stamped guilty until he was condemned guilty? Why are you so prejudiced towards Vas - especially when all other commercial guys don't interest you at all? Couldn't you add some clear statements for me because I need them, just because you were always the highest role model out of computer chess for me...
1) Can Bob support that Rybka is a derivative of Fruit? If so, I would be interested in seeing it.
2) If Bob provides the evidence, then why is the WCCC allowing Rybka to participate? My understanding is only original works can play at WCCC.
The evidence has been provided! Yet it is swept under the mat.
Without seeing the Rybka 1.0 beta source code, or a version that is close to it, it will *never* be possible to *prove* whether Vas has copied source code or only reused ideas from Fruit 2.1. You know that, and therefore speak of "evidence" only instead of "proof", which indeed makes a difference in my understanding of English.
In the last discussion of that topic where I participated I presented a long list of statements related to each of the points that made up the "evidence" presented by Zach on his page. There was not much discussion about that, most of my points have simply been ignored. I could say, when using your style, that the counter-evidence is there and essentially nobody complained except you and Zach, so it were valid. I don't do that, however. Instead I say: these points are still open, conclusion still missing.
If ever these points that I raised against Zach's analysis were resolved, and the accepted conclusion were that the presented evidence is correct, then the most you might say would be that "small parts of Fruit 2.1 code have been reused in Rybka 1.0 beta", which would still be a statement very different from your "Rybka is a Fruit derivative" because:
- the amount of Fruit code that is said to be involved in "reuse" is so small compared to the overall program size, and so relatively unimportant, that it can never be viewed as being a substantial part of Fruit, so even according to the GPL it would not be sufficient to call Rybka 1.0 beta a "derived work" - all under the assumption that the presented evidence were fully correct, which I still doubt in many parts;
- in recent Rybka versions >= R3, the evaluation (main target of "copying" accusation) has definitely been rewritten, which we know from Larry Kaufman, and
- the Fruit author has not taken any action on that area for years, although he definitely knows the facts.
Bob, you may repeat your words thousands of times, or even a million of times, but that still does not create more truth than before.