smirobth wrote: 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.
Christopher Conkie wrote: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.
Christopher Conkie wrote: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.
Well, I mean it in the sense that different people have different moral principles, which from what I can tell is a fact. However, I don't wish to argue about such things, which is why I'm not posting in the CTF.
smirobth wrote: 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.
Christopher Conkie wrote: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.
Christopher Conkie wrote: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 apology might be a good way to start. IMO.
It may not be illegal, but it is unethical.
Terry
I strongly disagree. No laws were broken and no one was harmed. Even Vas says as much. How can that be unethical?
Gandalf wrote:Well, I mean it in the sense that different people have different moral principles, which from what I can tell is a fact. However, I don't wish to argue about such things, which is why I'm not posting in the CTF.
smirobth wrote: 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.
Christopher Conkie wrote: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.
Christopher Conkie wrote: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 apology might be a good way to start. IMO.
It may not be illegal, but it is unethical.
Terry
I strongly disagree. No laws were broken and no one was harmed. Even Vas says as much. How can that be unethical?
Well, it appears Rybka was decompiled and reverse engineered, and if Vas was American he would be sueing
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...
Thats what i think will happend. But maybe i'm wrong....
I am also not sure. It depends on whether the copyright laws only consider how the final product looks, or also how it was developed. To me it seems unlikely that the laws consider how the product was made, because it would make it almost impossible to prove anything.
I could be wrong, though: Of course I am not a lawyer. But my point remains: The question is not what the GPL says, but what the copyright laws say.