Last Rybka Thread for now...

[chrisw]

If any code is taken it is certainly relevent what and how much.

Only to the extent of obtaining needed proof. Ethically, "what" and "how much" are irrelevant.

Defence lawyer will demand the following:

1. Prove the code in the GPL program is original and not available anywhere else. For the UCI code or substantial chunks of it that is not going to be easy or possible.

I doubt it. By the time he gets to his defense, it will have presumably already been established that the defendant actually has copied code, presumably GPL'd code. If he borrowed it from elsewhere, it's up to the defense to show that.

6. Explain why you complaint is not vexatious. Defence will declare it is, and provide plenty of CCC posts to demonstrate vexatiousness.

Very funny. If the defense uses CCC posts to demonstrate anything, then it has already lost. Now, I looked up Vexatious litigation because I didn't know what it was. I think you should too, because you clearly don't.

7. Explain why your case should not be thrown right out of court with demand for costs.

Again, the judge would have already thrown out the case if this had merit. This would be argued before and after the case, not during.

Not funny at all. Vexatious litigation ......

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may bring down sanctions on the offender.

Some here would and have argued the purpose of all this stuff here is indeed to harass an adversary into (a) not competing in China, (b) reveal his source code. Whether true in all cases here not relevent, any defence will use it though, finding quotes as necessary.

[bnemias]

I think you need to read more about it. It's a repeated thing done by specific lawyers or firms, foremost.

[chrisw]

I think you need to read more about it. It's a repeated thing done by specific lawyers or firms, foremost.

The concept is often used against repeat legal attacks but it is not exclusively so. A colleague of mine who brought an employment tribunal case recently and lost it was then attacked by the prosecution side who asked for costs on the grounds that his complaint was "vexatious". It was his first complaint. Vexatious can apply or be argued to apply for any case that can be argued to have been brought without good reason whether repeat or not.

[bnemias]

The concept is often used against repeat legal attacks but it is not exclusively so. A colleague of mine who brought an employment tribunal case recently and lost it was then attacked by the prosecution side who asked for costs on the grounds that his complaint was "vexatious". It was his first complaint. Vexatious can apply or be argued to apply for any case that can be argued to have been brought without good reason whether repeat or not.

He was attacked by the prosecution side? That flies in the face of the whole concept...

[chrisw]

The concept is often used against repeat legal attacks but it is not exclusively so. A colleague of mine who brought an employment tribunal case recently and lost it was then attacked by the prosecution side who asked for costs on the grounds that his complaint was "vexatious". It was his first complaint. Vexatious can apply or be argued to apply for any case that can be argued to have been brought without good reason whether repeat or not.

He was attacked by the prosecution side?

Sorry! Defence side.

In common with many, I also used to think vexatious applied to repeat only, btw, but as above case shows it doesn't. Definition quoted above also agrees.

Vexatious also can be applied to an initial frivolous case. Maybe you shoudld read a bit more

[bnemias]

Vexatious also can be applied to an initial frivolous case. Maybe you shoudld read a bit more ;-)

I can see it can be applied to an initial instance now. Doesn't change my other arguments, though. Nor that CCC posts aren't going to help, even as potential arguments for Vexatious litigation.

[chrisw]

I think you need to read more about it. It's a repeated thing done by specific lawyers or firms, foremost.

I think you may be confusing the concept of vexatious litigation with the concept of a vexatious litigant.

Vexatious litigation is brought frivolously. It can mean repeat litigation, but it doesn't have to.

A vexatious litigant is a legal status. A litigant can be declated vexatious if he brings repeat cases. It's a mechanism of legal status to prevent him bringing more.

[bnemias]

I don't see how it's going to creep up in a case like this. Once you prove code has been copied, it can't possibly be construed as Vexatious litigation, unless a litigant/firm repeatedly uses as evidence code which they know can be found outside of GPL bounds.

[tiger]

7. Explain why your case should not be thrown right out of court with demand for costs.

I don't plan to go to court with it. I think you missunderstood my first post, everyone shall decide for himself if it is enough or not. I will not convince you, and you will not convince me.

Fair enough, I understand. But.

If you talk GPL licence, you talk legal. If you talk legal then it's fair to step ahead into a possible legal process. I argue that the thought experiment of stepping into legal process is going to be enough to make anyone recoil from it. Hence the GPL licence talk is weakened to zero as the GPL, is basically unenforcable even if the breaches you argue have taken place.

Finally you say it!

Wow! How many days of arguing using absurd reasoning against the provided evidence?

Wouldn't have been simpler to state it right from the start?

"Zach, Christophe, Norman, we don't care about any evidence, the GPL is invalid anyway."

As far as I can see, there are two programmers arguing against the evidence: you and Uri. And both of you have stated now that they think the GPL is invalid.



// Christophe

[bob]

The first link is a spreadsheet with some parameter passing code from the UCI. All engines have to have this stuff.

Yes, all engines have it. But at least in a different order. This looks very similar. If this is not enough for you, OK.

and certainly absolutely nothing at all to do with the engine AI.

I gonna repeat myself The GPL simply doesn't allow to copy a single line of GPL code or to start a new project with GPL code. All this work must be released under GPL too. So the question is not: "how much or which code is taken" from a GPL programm, the question is: "Is there any code taken from a GPL program." It is not relevant which or how much code from a GPL program is taken

The second link is to data passed back to the interface. All programs pass data backwards and forwards to the interface and in many ways the data that gets passed is forced, else the interface won't work.

I think I elaborately explained why the similaries are suspicious. I even showed other engineoutput. Take some time and read it. If it is not enough for you, OK.

Your analysis of the GPL is also faulty.

No

If any code is taken it is certainly relevent what and how much.

Defence lawyer will demand the following:

1. Prove the code in the GPL program is original and not available anywhere else. For the UCI code or substantial chunks of it that is not going to be easy or possible.

That is wrong. DNA is not 100.00000% proof as when there are a finite number of possibilities, duplication is always posible. Ditto for fingerprints. So the standard is not "beyond all doubt" but "beyond a _reasonable_ doubt". No two programmers will produce the same blocks of code. Because there, there is an _infinite_ number of ways to write code to produce the same results. Enough expert witnesses familiar with the would be more than enough to convince a jury that this simply does not happen. And it is well _past_ time to get off of this bandwagon. This simply does not happen naturally.

2. Demonstrate the code is non-trivial. What means non-trivial?

A bubble sort is trivial. A piece of code to break a command up into tokens is trivial. But several trivial pieces of code make a non-trivial piece of code. I don't see why this is so complicated. If I should be asked to testify, I have a mountain of data to bring to the table as already mentioned. Othello is pretty simple compared to chess. Othello programs written in less than one semester are far simpler than chess programs with 10x the number of lines of code. Yet these othello programs I have (over 100) show no similarities beyond the overview level that all play the same game. There are simply too many ways to write the same algorithm. Even the searches look nothing alike except for functionality. I believe that any impartial jury would take this, plus similar data from places like Stanford, Dartmouth, Carnegie-Melon, etc, and conclude that this is a red-herring claim.

3. Demonstrate the code chunk is substantive. What means substantive?

4. Account for the differences contained within the code chunks (you posted already comments that Fruit does so and so, Rybka not within the code chunks)

Students are quite good at trying this kind of stuff. Change the variable names. Change the order of statements when it doesn't change the semantics. Change the structures used when possible, to conceal plagiarism. Does it really matter whether I zero a counter at the top of a piece of code, or right before the loop where it is modified?

Once again, if you were grading the projects I have to deal with, you would _always_ say "original work" if you use that approach. Yet any competent person, once shown the "tricks" used to disguise copying, will see through it immediately.

5. Account for the massive non-similarities, 99.99999% of the programs

What does that have to do with GPL? We are looking for significant similarities.

6. Explain why you complaint is not vexatious. Defence will declare it is, and provide plenty of CCC posts to demonstrate vexatiousness.

For a finding of fact, motive is irrelevant. If I present a video recording of someone committing a murder, the fact that I like or don't like them is completely irrelevant.

7. Explain why your case should not be thrown right out of court with demand for costs.

Because there is significant evidence, validated by many experts, suggesting that something improper has happened.