Strelka and source code experts

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

Moderator: Ras

User avatar
Daniel Mehrmann
Posts: 858
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: Germany
Full name: Daniel Mehrmann

Apology to Harm Gert

Post by Daniel Mehrmann »

Daniel Mehrmann wrote:
Rolf wrote:
Daniel Mehrmann wrote:
hgm wrote:Well, it seems to me the burden of proof is on you, since what you claim defies logic. Show me one court decision where two things that had zero text in common were ruled to be a copy under copyright law...
I must proof something ? I must proof nothing.

That's not my task and i have no time and no desire to play your game.

Again, that's a task for the FSF. I do nothing is this case. I'm just a FSF member but nothing more. I'm just reporting things where I think there is something bad in my view. Ask the FSF to get your answer, if you don't want to do that i can't help you anyway.

Ok, that is a possible choice in general. But after your former messages such a choice is looking odd. You made claims or just let's say statements. And then if someone questions your statements he just wants to see your reasons, your justifications for what you had written. This isnt a game, because you had criticised him. This is simple logic what he asked you and you dont know what you could answer? I thought this is a forum for debates. Just typing I'll go to the FSF makes no sense if you dont want to debate your opinions and choices. Either seriously with the Law under your ellbow or just in joking like Simpson, but not by telling a collegue you wouldnt want to play his "games".
You're wrong.

1.) He doesn't understand the GPL at all
2.) His english is much better as mine
3.) in any case he just could write me dead (as you too, if you want)
4) i can't answer him as i want to answer (english)
4.) The talk is over for me anyway (it looks like he supports cloner)

Best,
Daniel
Sorry, Gerd !

Tord opend me my eyes for your view and you're right from the law view.
I'm sorry that i was writing that you're support clone guys !

Sorry.

Best,
Daniel
User avatar
Dr.Wael Deeb
Posts: 9773
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: Amman,Jordan

Re: Apology to Harm Gert

Post by Dr.Wael Deeb »

Daniel Mehrmann wrote:
Daniel Mehrmann wrote:
Rolf wrote:
Daniel Mehrmann wrote:
hgm wrote:Well, it seems to me the burden of proof is on you, since what you claim defies logic. Show me one court decision where two things that had zero text in common were ruled to be a copy under copyright law...
I must proof something ? I must proof nothing.

That's not my task and i have no time and no desire to play your game.

Again, that's a task for the FSF. I do nothing is this case. I'm just a FSF member but nothing more. I'm just reporting things where I think there is something bad in my view. Ask the FSF to get your answer, if you don't want to do that i can't help you anyway.

Ok, that is a possible choice in general. But after your former messages such a choice is looking odd. You made claims or just let's say statements. And then if someone questions your statements he just wants to see your reasons, your justifications for what you had written. This isnt a game, because you had criticised him. This is simple logic what he asked you and you dont know what you could answer? I thought this is a forum for debates. Just typing I'll go to the FSF makes no sense if you dont want to debate your opinions and choices. Either seriously with the Law under your ellbow or just in joking like Simpson, but not by telling a collegue you wouldnt want to play his "games".
You're wrong.

1.) He doesn't understand the GPL at all
2.) His english is much better as mine
3.) in any case he just could write me dead (as you too, if you want)
4) i can't answer him as i want to answer (english)
4.) The talk is over for me anyway (it looks like he supports cloner)

Best,
Daniel
Sorry, Gerd !

Tord opend me my eyes for your view and you're right from the law view.
I'm sorry that i was writing that you're support clone guys !

Sorry.

Best,
Daniel
Bravo Daniel,it's a respectful act from your side,and I am sure that you didn't mean that :D
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
User avatar
Dr.Wael Deeb
Posts: 9773
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:44 pm
Location: Amman,Jordan

Re: Nobody is perfect....

Post by Dr.Wael Deeb »

George Tsavdaris wrote:
Dr.Wael Deeb wrote: Daniel,you are getting more and more anti-sympathy in the chess community with your actions and wrong sayings....
This is not true....

Who decides who is wrong and right here? It's a complicated subject and all say their opinion. The fact that many disagree with someone's opinion does not mean anti-sympathy or whatever.....
Are you saying that i am breaking the human GPL law :!: :?: :twisted:





:P
_No one can hit as hard as life.But it ain’t about how hard you can hit.It’s about how hard you can get hit and keep moving forward.How much you can take and keep moving forward….
Uri Blass
Posts: 10822
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:37 am
Location: Tel-Aviv Israel

Re: Nobody is perfect....

Post by Uri Blass »

I think that you are wrong because you are allowed to keep the code private and your private code is not GPL unless you share it.

Note that I have another question

Suppose that some genius decides to write a program that behaves exactly the same as commercial program without reverse engineering(only based on analysis of the program output in many chess positions)

Of course it is not easy to do it but it may be possible to do it for some smart person.

Suppose that the same person release his program.
Did he commit a crime and if yes what crime?

Uri
User avatar
Daniel Mehrmann
Posts: 858
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 9:24 pm
Location: Germany
Full name: Daniel Mehrmann

Re: Nobody is perfect....

Post by Daniel Mehrmann »

Uri Blass wrote:I think that you are wrong because you are allowed to keep the code private and your private code is not GPL unless you share it.

Note that I have another question

Suppose that some genius decides to write a program that behaves exactly the same as commercial program without reverse engineering(only based on analysis of the program output in many chess positions)

Of course it is not easy to do it but it may be possible to do it for some smart person.

Suppose that the same person release his program.
Did he commit a crime and if yes what crime?

Uri
No, GPL is a license. If you work on it private or public. Its always the same license at any time and any day.

You mean you must publish the code if you go public, thats right, but the license stay forever.

Best,
Daniel
User avatar
George Tsavdaris
Posts: 1627
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: Nobody is perfect....

Post by George Tsavdaris »

Daniel Mehrmann wrote:
But i believe the problem is following one:
You're starting with a GPL program. You're taking all files and code.
Now you're starting to modify the source and finaly, and thats importent, you're rewrite 100%. At the moment where you're modify functions the new code will be automaticly GPL because, lets for example, its still to 95% a copy (you're at the beginning). Your new code is changed to GPL. You're again starting by 100%. THen you do the next modification, copy dropped to 95%, but your new code is again GPL, back to 100% GPL.
And so on. This is a endless cyle up to the point everything is rewritten. But now new rewritten code is 100% GPL...
Well i find this situation simple:
Suppose it happened as you said and:

January 2007: You begin and have only modified 5% of the code.
February 2007: You modified 20% of the code.
May 2007: You modified 80% of the code.
August 2007: You modified 100% of the code.

Then if you release your program in January or February or May then it is GPL.
If you release it on August then it is no GPL. Since a complete rewrite took place.....

But i may be wrong too :(
But i can't believe that a complete rewrite can make something a derivative of another code.....


An attorney of a law firm that specializes in intellectual property protection, which i found on internet says:

"The primary indication of whether a new program is a derivative work is whether the source code of the original program was used, modified, translated or otherwise changed in any way to create the new program. If not, then I would argue that there is not a derivative work. "

I took it from here: http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj19.htm


I guess everything depends on definitions of this and that..... :D
After his son's birth they've asked him:
"Is it a boy or girl?"
YES! He replied.....
Dave K
Posts: 63
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:52 pm

Re: Strelka and source code experts

Post by Dave K »

Best post yet! Based on almost 40 years of programming and debug experience on large IBM mainframes, mid-range, early micro computers and PCs, I can honestly say there are very few original ideas, and in fact, most of todays software, chess included, is derived from improving on the efforts of others and migrated from platform to platform. In fact, many years ago, I wrote a pretty respectable chess program for a Z80 8 bit micro based on explanations and sample code I read in a Popular Science magazine. It used many of the techniques and algorithms found in today's chess engines. Having followed all the discussion, taking Yury at his word, and running a relatively small tournament with seven other strong contenders over two days, I am pretty much convinced this is HIS program and that it uses and improves on ideas, algorithms, and techniques of others. My take? If humans had to reinvent the wheel every time they wanted to create something that rolled, where would we be?

Dave
Enrico

Re: Nobody is perfect....

Post by Enrico »

Tord Romstad wrote:
Daniel Mehrmann wrote:I'm talking in case only if you're using sources which is already under GPL released and i'm not talking about a single function, i'm talking about a whole program. I think you misunderstood my last posting.
Daniel,

I am just as much a free software supporter as you are (if not more, after all I think chess programs should be free, unlike you), but nevertheless it seems to me that it is you who are misunderstanding Harm Geert. Harm Geert is 100% correct. Let me try to explain:

The Free Software Foundation does not, of course, have the authority to make laws, nor to change the interpretation of laws. Instead, the GNU General Public License makes use of ordinary copyright laws to protect GPLed programs. They cannot change the meaning of the word "copy", as defined by the copyright laws, to mean something different. If they did, the copyright laws would no longer apply to programs delivered under the GPL, and the license would be entirely worthless.

If the source code of program A differs so much from program B that program A cannot be described as a "copy" of program B, as defined by the copyright laws, the author of program B has no legal right to impose restrictions on what the author of program A can do with his program. This is true regardless of what license program B is provided with. Whether program B is GPLed has no relevance whatsoever.

Therefore there is no point in asking the FSF about anything, nor to study the GPL very carefully. The only relevant things are exactly how the word "copy" is defined in the copyright laws, and whether Strelka's source code is sufficiently similar to Fruit's to make it a copy according to this definition. I have not seen Strelka's source code, but based on what I have read about it, I am quite sure the copyright laws do not apply.

Based on what I know, I therefore have no reason to believe that mr. Osipov has commited a crime. Perhaps it could be said that it would be more ethical for him to release his code, since he has clearly learned so much from Fruit, but he has no legal obligation to do so.

Tord
Hello Tord.

I think Mr. Osipov is now facing enhanced scrutinization for his own statements, but I am not so sure it is well founded. There is more than one other program apart from Strelka that has done the same but also has not stepped forward and made a statement confirming such. Clearly, after his source code was inspected and cleared, he did not need to make any statements at all, but he chose to by his own accord.

Fabien's Fruit 2.0 and 2.1 source code releases were the double-edged sword of computer chess. One of the biggest contributions to computer chess ever made but because such gifts can be misused, it has also proven to be the Great Curse of the Clones. We have not seen the last of these kind of issues -- I am sure of that. Ethics in computer chess reached a notable 'turning point' in December 2005 and I believe it's chiefly responsbile for the loss of interest of many programmers.

Regards,

-elc.
Dirt
Posts: 2851
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:01 pm
Location: Irvine, CA, USA

Nobody is perfect..except Dann and Bryan

Post by Dirt »

hgm wrote:Unfortunately, it makes less sense than ever.

Let me tell you how copyright law works:

Authors are allowed to specify conditions what people can do with copies they make of their (i.e. the author's) work. That can range from "nothing" to an obligation to "make them publicly available under the same conditions".

If people violate the imposed conditions, the owner of the copyright can sue them, and they will win.

That is all they can do. That means all the rest they cannot do. In particular, they are not at liberty to define what constitutes a copy: the law defines that. And they are not allowed to put conditions on what people do with non-copies.

Of course they can do all that anyway, and they can still sue people that ignore these illegal conditions. And then they will lose, and have to pay for the trial...

Quite simple, actually.
Two minor points:

Some copyright violations are prosecuted under criminal law. That wouldn't be at all likely in this case, and I only bring it up since you were talking about copyright law in general.

In the USA it is rare for the loser to have to pay for the trial. It could happen, but I wouldn't count on it.

I agree with you that Strelka still does not appear to be a clone (in the chess sense).
hristo

Re: Nobody is perfect....

Post by hristo »

Daniel Mehrmann wrote:
Uri Blass wrote:I think that you are wrong because you are allowed to keep the code private and your private code is not GPL unless you share it.

Note that I have another question

Suppose that some genius decides to write a program that behaves exactly the same as commercial program without reverse engineering(only based on analysis of the program output in many chess positions)

Of course it is not easy to do it but it may be possible to do it for some smart person.

Suppose that the same person release his program.
Did he commit a crime and if yes what crime?

Uri
No, GPL is a license. If you work on it private or public. Its always the same license at any time and any day.

You mean you must publish the code if you go public, thats right, but the license stay forever.
The license stays *forever* only with the original code that had that license. The license is attached to the implementation of the ideas -- the actual sequence of bytes (characters) that make your idea work and nothing more. The copyright license doesn't apply to concepts, ideas and methods nor does it apply to common (non-copyrightable) expressions. For example:

Code: Select all

#define True 1
#define False 0
is not a subject to copyright.

The license is not automatically applied to code that was written by someone else who might have borrowed the ideas from the GPL code.

The license can be changed by the original copyright holder to a different license. What this means is that version 1 of a said software package can be GPL and version 2 of the same software can be BSD license (or something else entirely). (There are of course some limitations for when such changes are possible, but it is possible for the license holder to change from GPL to proprietary license)

In the above example everyone will be able to use the version 1 of the product and expand on it, make derivatives and redistribute -- no such guarantee exists for version 2 of the said product, i.e. the license is not *forever*.

There are many details in the copyright law that are difficult to understand and sometimes seem to lead to unexpected situations. However after having dealt with GPL code for years (using the services of copyright lawyer(s)) for the creation of commercial-proprietary software/hardware systems it has become evident that most people don't grasp the scope of copyright law, in general, and the ramifications of GPL, in particular.

In any case and the bottom line is that copyright doesn't protect your ideas it protects only your expression of those ideas.
Patents can be used to protect methods and process, which in some cases can translate into protecting ideas. But this is an entirely different story and a different topic. ;-)

Regards.