Strelka and source code experts

[Dann Corbit]

I am not sure that GPL has been violated. The algorithms of GPL code are not protected, only the implementation.

It seems that there may be some moral issue (but not an ethical one).

I do not understand why people think it is better to invent their own algorithms rather than to learn existing ones and improve it.

For any chess programmer to pretend that all of the work belongs strictly to them is very, very strange to me. I guess that the very best chess programmers innovate about 5%, but that 5% is very telling.

If (in the long run) the purpose of the Strelka clone was to make fun of Vasik, then I will be very angry about it. But so far, I really do not know what is going on and so I will wait until the facts become clear.

Do you know of a second example where a decent programmer created his program just to demonstrate something someone else should have done and who then claimed he were still a free man?? I see no reason for such a plot. There must be forcedly a vicious motivation. So, on what facts are you speculating, hoping or waiting?

The missing ones.

[Christopher Conkie]

What part of "used and transmitted without restriction" do you not understand?.

Is it me?



A guy gives you a chess engine for free and says to you "use" it. What do you think the purpose of the program is?

Let's see now......

Is it to supply source code?

Or is it to play chess with?

This statement makes it 100% clear that dis-assembly and decompiling Rybka 1.0, or any other use what-so-ever, is expressly allowed.

I'll do the jokes if you don't mind.

Many people have been wondering why Strelka was based on Rybka 1.0 instead of one of the more recent and stronger versions. Why would someone reverse engineer a weaker program than they could have?

Because it takes time to disassemble something according to Dann.

I actually disbelieve this although.

I think it's more to do with what is easiest to disassemble.....

This completely non-restrictive license agreement may be the key to answering that question.

If he wanted anyone to see the source he would have given that away as well.

Releasing a chess engine in compiled format is not an invitation to decompile it.

Christopher

[Rolf]

I am not sure that GPL has been violated. The algorithms of GPL code are not protected, only the implementation.

It seems that there may be some moral issue (but not an ethical one).

I do not understand why people think it is better to invent their own algorithms rather than to learn existing ones and improve it.

For any chess programmer to pretend that all of the work belongs strictly to them is very, very strange to me. I guess that the very best chess programmers innovate about 5%, but that 5% is very telling.

If (in the long run) the purpose of the Strelka clone was to make fun of Vasik, then I will be very angry about it. But so far, I really do not know what is going on and so I will wait until the facts become clear.

Do you know of a second example where a decent programmer created his program just to demonstrate something someone else should have done and who then claimed he were still a free man?? I see no reason for such a plot. There must be forcedly a vicious motivation. So, on what facts are you speculating, hoping or waiting?

The missing ones.

Like Ossipov's identity, correct? Tomorrow I'll publish the source code of Deep Blue! Are you waiting?

[Christopher Conkie]

But he did not give it away to Osipov to make Strelka.

It was stolen.

It was not stolen. Vas still has his code!


I steal a thing "A" from someone when i take the "A" without this person
wants me to take it and this person ends up not having the "A".
You should find a better word....

Theft.

"Both versions of these components are free and can be used and transmitted without restriction".

Seems clear to me Chris. You're inserting your interpretation and words that are not there. You may wish they were there but they are not.

Put the other one. It's got bells on it. It's easier to explain to you with the link rather than write it all again. I suppose it applies to you as well as Robin.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 628#130628



Christopher

[smirobth]

What part of "used and transmitted without restriction" do you not understand?.

Is it to supply source code?

No, nor does the Strelka author have the source code. He has legally obtained disassembled code, part of which has been re-constituted into different source code. There is nothing illegal, or even unethical, about that.

If he wanted anyone to see the source he would have given that away as well.

And to this date NO ONE that Vas did not want to see his source code has. Disassembled code is not source code.

Releasing a chess engine in compiled format is not an invitation to decompile it.
Christopher

Nor is it a prohibition. And a license that says "without restriction" is taken by many people to mean "without restriction". I think those people would include any judge in any country you might care to name.

Your strident unwavering accusations have left you with a lot of egg on your face. Maybe you should quit before it collects any more. Offering the Strelka author an appology might be a good way to start. IMO.

[Dave McClain]

What part of "used and transmitted without restriction" do you not understand?.

Is it me?

Christopher

Yes, it is.

[Christopher Conkie]

What part of "used and transmitted without restriction" do you not understand?.

Is it me?

Christopher

Yes, it is.

I doubt it.

[Christopher Conkie]

What part of "used and transmitted without restriction" do you not understand?.

Is it to supply source code?

No, nor does the Strelka author have the source code. He has legally obtained disassembled code, part of which has been re-constituted into different source code. There is nothing illegal, or even unethical, about that.

If he wanted anyone to see the source he would have given that away as well.

And to this date NO ONE that Vas did not want to see his source code has. Disassembled code is not source code.

Releasing a chess engine in compiled format is not an invitation to decompile it.
Christopher

Nor is it a prohibition. And a license that says "without restriction" is taken by many people to mean "without restriction". I think those people would include any judge in any country you might care to name.

Your strident unwavering accusations have left you with a lot of egg on your face. Maybe you should quit before it collects any more. Offering the Strelka author an appology might be a good way to start. IMO.

I cannot be bothered even trying to explain to you.

I put this down to you just being obtuse.

The only thing the Rybka cloner is gonna get from me is the bird.

If you were right and that this is how such actions would be percieved in the U.S. it would only confirm what most in western Europe already think, namely, that your legal system is a laughing stock.

Christopher

[smirobth]

If you were right and that this is how such actions would be percieved in the U.S. it would only confirm what most in western Europe already think, namely, that your legal system is a laughing stock.

If "used and transmitted without restriction" means something different in Scotland's legal system than in the US then I think it would be Scotland's legal system that would be the joke. But I suspect that it is not Scotland's legal system, but just some people there.

[Dave McClain]

If you were right and that this is how such actions would be percieved in the U.S. it would only confirm what most in western Europe already think, namely, that your legal system is a laughing stock.

If "used and transmitted without restriction" means something different in Scotland's legal system than in the US then I think it would be Scotland's legal system that would be the joke. But I suspect that it is not Scotland's legal system, but just some people there.

Robin,

It means the same over here, it's just that "no" and "clear" are not in everyone's dictionary.