Graham Banks wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 6:37 am
It's just saddens me when lawsuits or other types of divisive action occur.
Just curious, if CB loses, will you remove FF from the CCRL list?
ChessBase already conceded selling Houdini, and Houdini is still there. So the answer is no I suspect.
At the very least Houdini 5/6 should have a big fat separate tag that signifies it's an illegal clone (explicitly) and that if it's still on the list, it's only for legacy reasons.
Just curious, who defines that is an illegal clone? Which authoroty? In what kind of process? Did you take Houdart to court? Did Team SF come up with a clone-planel?
--
Srdja
Very lazy way to avoid any real argument. Devoid of intellectual merit. Who defines anything? Who says what you are experiencing is not only in your own mind? Who says the air you breath is real?
You did not answer my question. The ICGA had at least a panel and a process.
Graham Banks wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 6:37 am
It's just saddens me when lawsuits or other types of divisive action occur.
Just curious, if CB loses, will you remove FF from the CCRL list?
ChessBase already conceded selling Houdini, and Houdini is still there. So the answer is no I suspect.
At the very least Houdini 5/6 should have a big fat separate tag that signifies it's an illegal clone (explicitly) and that if it's still on the list, it's only for legacy reasons.
Just curious, who defines that is an illegal clone? Which authoroty? In what kind of process? Did you take Houdart to court? Did Team SF come up with a clone-planel?
--
Srdja
Very lazy way to avoid any real argument. Devoid of intellectual merit. Who defines anything? Who says what you are experiencing is not only in your own mind? Who says the air you breath is real?
You did not answer my question. The ICGA had at least a panel and a process.
--
Srdja
Houdini has been determined to be a clone via source code inspection, by a wide array of subject matter experts, including but not limited to: Me, Alayan, Cucumber, Rebel, Norman Schmidt, Vizvez, Terje, Connor, and more.
#WeAreAllDraude #JusticeForDraude #RememberDraude #LeptirBigUltra "Those who can't do, clone instead" - Eduard ( A real life friend, not this forum's Eduard )
smatovic wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 8:55 am
Just curious, who defines that it is an illegal clone? Which authority? In what kind of process? Did you take Houdart to court? Did Team SF come up with a clone-planel?
Srdja
A court of law of course, and only a court of law. Which is why I'm happy to see this court case. But now that Chessbase - who seem to be the sole target of this lawsuit - have removed Houdini from sale, then is the court case then solely about Fat Fritz ? So we won't get that definitive legal answer on Houdini.
Last edited by Modern Times on Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Graham Banks wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 6:37 am
It's just saddens me when lawsuits or other types of divisive action occur.
Just curious, if CB loses, will you remove FF from the CCRL list?
ChessBase already conceded selling Houdini, and Houdini is still there. So the answer is no I suspect.
At the very least Houdini 5/6 should have a big fat separate tag that signifies it's an illegal clone (explicitly) and that if it's still on the list, it's only for legacy reasons.
Just curious, who defines that it is an illegal clone? Which authority? In what kind of process? Did you take Houdart to court? Did Team SF come up with a clone-planel?
--
Srdja
GPLv3 is very clear so I suggest you read it.
We have seen the source code of Houdini, and we have seen that compiling it produces a binary with the exact same bench as the commercial Houdini.
Many parts of the source code are quite clearly copied (and translated) from SF, the makefile still has mentions of SF. There is Glaurung code still there too.
Houdini contains GPLv3 code from other authors, Houdart never got permission to redistribute without distributing the source. It is illegal, by definition.
Graham Banks wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 6:37 am
It's just saddens me when lawsuits or other types of divisive action occur.
Just curious, if CB loses, will you remove FF from the CCRL list?
ChessBase already conceded selling Houdini, and Houdini is still there. So the answer is no I suspect.
At the very least Houdini 5/6 should have a big fat separate tag that signifies it's an illegal clone (explicitly) and that if it's still on the list, it's only for legacy reasons.
Just curious, who defines that it is an illegal clone? Which authority? In what kind of process? Did you take Houdart to court? Did Team SF come up with a clone-planel?
--
Srdja
GPLv3 is very clear so I suggest you read it.
We have seen the source code of Houdini, and we have seen that compiling it produces a binary with the exact same bench as the commercial Houdini.
Many parts of the source code are quite clearly copied (and translated) from SF, the makefile still has mentions of SF. There is Glaurung code still there too.
Houdini contains GPLv3 code from other authors, Houdart never got permission to redistribute without distributing the source. It is illegal, by definition.
The proof is as formal as it gets in real life.
Alright, there was a prev thread about Vas and the ICGA, one point was, there was no team red, may I ask, does your team blue has an team red for your 'investigation'.
Graham Banks wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 6:37 am
It's just saddens me when lawsuits or other types of divisive action occur.
Just curious, if CB loses, will you remove FF from the CCRL list?
ChessBase already conceded selling Houdini, and Houdini is still there. So the answer is no I suspect.
At the very least Houdini 5/6 should have a big fat separate tag that signifies it's an illegal clone (explicitly) and that if it's still on the list, it's only for legacy reasons.
Just curious, who defines that it is an illegal clone? Which authority? In what kind of process? Did you take Houdart to court? Did Team SF come up with a clone-planel?
--
Srdja
GPLv3 is very clear so I suggest you read it.
We have seen the source code of Houdini, and we have seen that compiling it produces a binary with the exact same bench as the commercial Houdini.
Many parts of the source code are quite clearly copied (and translated) from SF, the makefile still has mentions of SF. There is Glaurung code still there too.
Houdini contains GPLv3 code from other authors, Houdart never got permission to redistribute without distributing the source. It is illegal, by definition.
The proof is as formal as it gets in real life.
Alright, there was a prev thread about Vas and the ICGA, one point was, there was no team red, may I ask, does your team blue has an team red for your 'investigation'.
--
Srdja
No one is dumb enough to be on team blue this time around.
#WeAreAllDraude #JusticeForDraude #RememberDraude #LeptirBigUltra "Those who can't do, clone instead" - Eduard ( A real life friend, not this forum's Eduard )
Graham Banks wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 6:37 am
It's just saddens me when lawsuits or other types of divisive action occur.
Just curious, if CB loses, will you remove FF from the CCRL list?
ChessBase already conceded selling Houdini, and Houdini is still there. So the answer is no I suspect.
At the very least Houdini 5/6 should have a big fat separate tag that signifies it's an illegal clone (explicitly) and that if it's still on the list, it's only for legacy reasons.
Just curious, who defines that it is an illegal clone? Which authority? In what kind of process? Did you take Houdart to court? Did Team SF come up with a clone-planel?
--
Srdja
GPLv3 is very clear so I suggest you read it.
We have seen the source code of Houdini, and we have seen that compiling it produces a binary with the exact same bench as the commercial Houdini.
Many parts of the source code are quite clearly copied (and translated) from SF, the makefile still has mentions of SF. There is Glaurung code still there too.
Houdini contains GPLv3 code from other authors, Houdart never got permission to redistribute without distributing the source. It is illegal, by definition.
The proof is as formal as it gets in real life.
Alright, there was a prev thread about Vas and the ICGA, one point was, there was no team red, may I ask, does your team blue has an team red for your 'investigation'.
--
Srdja
Dumbest response I've ever seen.
What's next? You want me to ask if the court actually confirmed 1+1 = 2, and if we have also considered the opinions of the 1+1=3 team...
Raphexon wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:05 am
The proof is as formal as it gets in real life.
Real life is that a court of law is the only authority that decides on matters of law. Not the court of talkchess or any other "court", Let the court of law decide on the legality of Houdini, and Fat Fritz, and any damages and remedies. I welcome this lawsuit so that we can finally stop endless discussions about it. I wonder though on the matter of costs, whether costs would be awarded to the winning party, so for example say the Stockfish team lost this case and Chessbase had to be reimbursed their legal costs, who would pay ?
Since it's impossible to reach Stockfish 14 (+100 ELO over commercials Dragon 2.0 and Fat Fritz 2.0, +200 ELO over Ethereal 13 NNUE) the only way to survive for Chessbase is to include Powerbooks 2022 & up to 7-man online tablebases on Fritz 18 if they want to sell their 20 years old GUI for 99€, not only the SF modified source code! How is possible that they cannot hire a top level developers team to create their own engine instead of simply rename "Fritz" the work of others???
Mac mini M1 8GB-256GB, Windows 11 & Ubuntu ARM64.