Fabien's open letter to the community

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

User avatar
Laskos
Posts: 7888
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 8:21 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Laskos » Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:30 am

Adam Hair wrote:
Thanks for the quick response, Kai.

I've gotten that result with Strelka 2.0 and Rybka 1.0 Beta 2 several
times. That's why I believe Beta 2 may actually be a Conkie joke; it
may actually be Strelka.

I am also using sim03.exe. Also, I am using a diverse group of engines.
I only posted the results that were relevant to my question. It is part of
a preliminary set of tests that I have been running. I hope to present my
data in the near future.
Hi Adam, I am back here for a short time.
The measure in my case is normalized Euclidian. The average linkage distance between clusters s_i and s_j is
1/Norm(s_i)/Norm(s_j) * Sum(k) Sum(l) [distance(s_ik, s_jl)].

Good luck with your tests, maybe I find time to look at Beta 2, you made me curious.

Kai

Christopher Conkie
Posts: 6064
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 7:34 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Christopher Conkie » Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:31 am

Chan Rasjid wrote:
bob wrote:
hgm wrote:
mwyoung wrote:The proof is the author of Fruit himself. "Fabien's open letter to the community". And Vas statement that he claimed that Strelka 2.0 is a clone of Rybka 1.0. This linked Fruit code with Rybka code.
Read it again, then. As many times as it needed to register. He says "legally 'there is no issue". Which means no GPL violation, i.e. no copying of code.

Now I understand of course you take Fabien for an idiot, so that you can ignoe what he writes completely, and just want to use the fact that he says anything at all as a good opprtunity to shoot off your mouth aganst those that you dislike.

But I take Fabien kind of seriously. "No copying of code, but a translation of the algorithm".

So 'poof' goes your 'proof'...
I think you are misinterpreting "translation". Certainly if I translate a book from German to English and sell it as my own, I'll run afoul of copyright laws pretty quickly if the English copy sells well.
This is where most are wrong and HGM right.

The idea of 'derived work' has never been tested yet in any court (internet). Most legal/technical experts interpret 'derived work' in GPL to only include 'copy and paste'. The notions about derived work accepted in general copyright laws do not apply in GPL.

Rasjid
My goodness.... You may yet restore my belief in what only ever was a hobby. That is an impressive post. It is both factual and the truth. Kudos, and I mean that.

Chris

Chan Rasjid
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 3:47 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Chan Rasjid » Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:37 am

Christopher Conkie wrote:
Chan Rasjid wrote:
bob wrote:
hgm wrote:
mwyoung wrote:The proof is the author of Fruit himself. "Fabien's open letter to the community". And Vas statement that he claimed that Strelka 2.0 is a clone of Rybka 1.0. This linked Fruit code with Rybka code.
Read it again, then. As many times as it needed to register. He says "legally 'there is no issue". Which means no GPL violation, i.e. no copying of code.

Now I understand of course you take Fabien for an idiot, so that you can ignoe what he writes completely, and just want to use the fact that he says anything at all as a good opprtunity to shoot off your mouth aganst those that you dislike.

But I take Fabien kind of seriously. "No copying of code, but a translation of the algorithm".

So 'poof' goes your 'proof'...
I think you are misinterpreting "translation". Certainly if I translate a book from German to English and sell it as my own, I'll run afoul of copyright laws pretty quickly if the English copy sells well.
This is where most are wrong and HGM right.

The idea of 'derived work' has never been tested yet in any court (internet). Most legal/technical experts interpret 'derived work' in GPL to only include 'copy and paste'. The notions about derived work accepted in general copyright laws do not apply in GPL.

Rasjid
My goodness.... You may yet restore my belief in what only ever was a hobby. That is an impressive post. It is both factual and the truth. Kudos, and I mean that.

Chris
There is a 'common sense' reason why books and software cannot be compared. In books, the copyright is about the actual source. In software you keep the source secret (Bill Gates) and obfuscate it with a compiler and sell an 'obfuscated' product that corners the market. Stallman&Co created GPL to save us poor endusers.

Rasjid
Don't believe when you're told "There's no free lunch!" There is Linux.

Ryan Benitez
Posts: 716
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:21 am
Location: Portland Oregon

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Ryan Benitez » Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:38 am

Chan Rasjid wrote:
bob wrote:
hgm wrote:
mwyoung wrote:The proof is the author of Fruit himself. "Fabien's open letter to the community". And Vas statement that he claimed that Strelka 2.0 is a clone of Rybka 1.0. This linked Fruit code with Rybka code.
Read it again, then. As many times as it needed to register. He says "legally 'there is no issue". Which means no GPL violation, i.e. no copying of code.

Now I understand of course you take Fabien for an idiot, so that you can ignoe what he writes completely, and just want to use the fact that he says anything at all as a good opprtunity to shoot off your mouth aganst those that you dislike.

But I take Fabien kind of seriously. "No copying of code, but a translation of the algorithm".

So 'poof' goes your 'proof'...
I think you are misinterpreting "translation". Certainly if I translate a book from German to English and sell it as my own, I'll run afoul of copyright laws pretty quickly if the English copy sells well.
This is where most are wrong and HGM right.

The idea of 'derived work' has never been tested yet in any court (internet). Most legal/technical experts interpret 'derived work' in GPL to only include 'copy and paste'. The notions about derived work accepted in general copyright laws do not apply in GPL.

Rasjid
Computer chess is a unique community in that it has become very grey for reasons I do not understand. I feel that I am in the minority here but I would prefer the FSF clarify what is and is not legal and either shut Rybka down or clear Rybka of GPL violation accusations. I have no personal interest either way and find it unfortunate that this has become such a polarizing issue.

Tom Barrister
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:29 pm

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Tom Barrister » Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:48 am

I'm going to abbreviate this as much as possible. These are all my opinions, not necessarily Gospel.

Rybka, in the current and/or some previous version. is now officially a clone of Fruit, rewritten or not, legally so or not.

Mr. Rajlich stating the he no longer has any of the earlier source codes (and implying that he knows of nobody on his team or elsewhere who has them) is a bunch of baloney, and it was probably done to try to cover his butt against possible lawsuits..

As usual, the good folks at Rybka will sweep this all under the rug.

As usual, CCRL and company will continue to allow Rybka to play and continue to ban the Ippolit series (because of payola, free copies of Rybka, Mr. Rajlich has photos of them sleeping with their sisters, whatever), thus proving that they can have it both ways, at least in their own private Idaho.

The Rybka hemorrhoid counters will continue to believe that Mr. Rajlich is the chess-programming version of Chuck Norris, and I imagine some expect a TV series in the near future, titles "Vasik: Czech Ranger", starring Mr. Rajlich, high-kicking the baddies and cleaning up Dodge.
----
Hi, xann. I haven't seen you since the IOS days and Turtle and company. Good to see you're alive and well.
This production is being brought to you by Rybka: "The engine made from scratch.™"

User avatar
Graham Banks
Posts: 30541
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Graham Banks » Wed Jan 26, 2011 12:51 am

Tom Barrister wrote:.......private Idaho.......
Well at least you have one redeeming feature. You like the B52s. :wink:
My email addresses:
gbanksnz at gmail.com
gbanksnz at yahoo.co.nz

Adam Hair
Posts: 3183
Joined: Wed May 06, 2009 8:31 pm
Location: Fuquay-Varina, North Carolina

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Adam Hair » Wed Jan 26, 2011 1:01 am

Laskos wrote:
Adam Hair wrote:
Thanks for the quick response, Kai.

I've gotten that result with Strelka 2.0 and Rybka 1.0 Beta 2 several
times. That's why I believe Beta 2 may actually be a Conkie joke; it
may actually be Strelka.

I am also using sim03.exe. Also, I am using a diverse group of engines.
I only posted the results that were relevant to my question. It is part of
a preliminary set of tests that I have been running. I hope to present my
data in the near future.
Hi Adam, I am back here for a short time.
The measure in my case is normalized Euclidian. The average linkage distance between clusters s_i and s_j is
1/Norm(s_i)/Norm(s_j) * Sum(k) Sum(l) [distance(s_ik, s_jl)].

Good luck with your tests, maybe I find time to look at Beta 2, you made me curious.

Kai
Thanks Kai.

Uri Blass
Posts: 7993
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:37 pm
Location: Tel-Aviv Israel

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Uri Blass » Wed Jan 26, 2011 1:02 am

Tom Barrister wrote:I'm going to abbreviate this as much as possible. These are all my opinions, not necessarily Gospel.

Rybka, in the current and/or some previous version. is now officially a clone of Fruit, rewritten or not, legally so or not.
It is clear that you do not know what is the meaning of a clone.

Rybka is clearly not a clone of fruit even if it is a derivative of fruit.
Rybka is clearly different than fruit and suggest different moves than fruit.

I am also not convinced that programmer of rybka(or strelka assuming it was close source) broke the GPL and it is clear that there is a disagreement about this question.

Some programmers like
H.G.Muller believe that it did not break the GPL because it is rewritten
and he is not the only programmer with that opinion.

It is clearly a grey area because there is a disagreement.
It is not the same as fruit-toga when everybody that I know agree that the programmers of toga had to release the source of toga(otherwise they are quilty).

Christopher Conkie
Posts: 6064
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 7:34 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Christopher Conkie » Wed Jan 26, 2011 1:02 am

Graham Banks wrote:
Tom Barrister wrote:.......private Idaho.......
Well at least you have one redeeming feature. You like the B52s. :wink:
Watch out for signs that say "hidden driveways".
Don't let the chlorine in your eyes
Blind you to the awful surprise
That's waitin' for you at
the bottom of the bottomless blue blue blue pool.

He doesn't like the B-52's does he?

Now I'm gonna have to swim round and round like the deadly hand
of a radium clock.......

:)

Chris

User avatar
Graham Banks
Posts: 30541
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 9:52 am
Location: Auckland, NZ

Re: Fabien's open letter to the community

Post by Graham Banks » Wed Jan 26, 2011 1:02 am

Ryan Benitez wrote:Computer chess is a unique community in that it has become very grey for reasons I do not understand. I feel that I am in the minority here but I would prefer the FSF clarify what is and is not legal and either shut Rybka down or clear Rybka of GPL violation accusations. I have no personal interest either way and find it unfortunate that this has become such a polarizing issue.
Fabien might find this thread interesting:
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... 7;hl=Fruit
My email addresses:
gbanksnz at gmail.com
gbanksnz at yahoo.co.nz

Post Reply