ethical dilemma

[Gerd Isenberg]

With hindsight - after Vasik's statement - Strelka's source shouldn't be published. It is a great source, but contains reverse engeneered stuff from a commercial program. The bitboard infra-structure, the unique way to index and use pre-calculated tables by pawn-structure and material etc..

How would chessbase act, if somebody publishes decompiled fritz-sources?

The ethical dilemma now - the idea of science (and open source) to share and publish ideas - versus the violated vital interests of a commercial programmer, whose initial ideas got uncovered and illegally published.

The source, already widespreaded, will engourage other programmers to use ideas from it, even if the original source got banned by a restraining order. We will likely get more clones. Some may adapt their own bitboard infrastructure with the search and evaluation routines of Strelka, or simply replace identifiers or simplify some expressions. The less they understand the semantics and principles, the more likely they may simply copy and paste on syntactical level.

Is it for instance ethically correct now, to discuss or explain the ideas - to encourage people to implement those ideas on their own way?

[Uri Blass]

With hindsight - after Vasik's statement - Strelka's source shouldn't be published. It is a great source, but contains reverse engeneered stuff from a commercial program. The bitboard infra-structure, the unique way to index and use pre-calculated tables by pawn-structure and material etc..

How would chessbase act, if somebody publishes decompiled fritz-sources?

The ethical dilemma now - the idea of science (and open source) to share and publish ideas - versus the violated vital interests of a commercial programmer, whose initial ideas got uncovered and illegally published.

The source, already widespreaded, will engourage other programmers to use ideas from it, even if the original source got banned by a restraining order. We will likely get more clones. Some may adapt their own bitboard infrastructure with the search and evaluation routines of Strelka, or simply replace identifiers or simplify some expressions. The less they understand the semantics and principles, the more likely they may simply copy and paste on syntactical level.

Is it for instance ethically correct now, to discuss or explain the ideas - to encourage people to implement those ideas on their own way?

I think that it is ethically correct to discuss and explain the ideas.

Uri

[Guetti]

It appears that it was ethically wrong to disassemble Rybka in the first place, but I think it was the best decision to make the source available to all people, instead of making them available to only 'selected' people. As soon as some persons got the source, and could analyze or modify it, I felt that it was only fair if everybody had the chance to do so. So I'm glad the sources are available now. Furthermore, the Rybka version it derives from is 2 years old, as I understand.

[Daniel Mehrmann]

With hindsight - after Vasik's statement - Strelka's source shouldn't be published. It is a great source, but contains reverse engeneered stuff from a commercial program. The bitboard infra-structure, the unique way to index and use pre-calculated tables by pawn-structure and material etc..

How would chessbase act, if somebody publishes decompiled fritz-sources?

The ethical dilemma now - the idea of science (and open source) to share and publish ideas - versus the violated vital interests of a commercial programmer, whose initial ideas got uncovered and illegally published.

The source, already widespreaded, will engourage other programmers to use ideas from it, even if the original source got banned by a restraining order. We will likely get more clones. Some may adapt their own bitboard infrastructure with the search and evaluation routines of Strelka, or simply replace identifiers or simplify some expressions. The less they understand the semantics and principles, the more likely they may simply copy and paste on syntactical level.

Is it for instance ethically correct now, to discuss or explain the ideas - to encourage people to implement those ideas on their own way?

Good statement Gerd !

Well, basicly i see a violation of the GPL, because the "author" used sources of two open-source programs at least.

The GPL doesn't know "illegal" or "legal" or ethical stuff. It's just a pure license how to handle the source.

The best solution would be that the russian webpage close the Strelka 2.0b sources offer as soon as possible.
The next step would be that Vas removes all lines of code which he thinks that could hurt coprights of Rybka. Finally the "clean" code will be released under GPL. It doesn't matter if the engine isn't runable after Vas cleanup action.

The copyright should be transfered to the FSF. (Free Software Foundation)

The FSF would be the owner of the sources. Its not really clear who can say thats my code and copyright. The problem is the "code-mix" of 3 programs or more.



Best,
Daniel

[Uri Blass]

With hindsight - after Vasik's statement - Strelka's source shouldn't be published. It is a great source, but contains reverse engeneered stuff from a commercial program. The bitboard infra-structure, the unique way to index and use pre-calculated tables by pawn-structure and material etc..

How would chessbase act, if somebody publishes decompiled fritz-sources?

The ethical dilemma now - the idea of science (and open source) to share and publish ideas - versus the violated vital interests of a commercial programmer, whose initial ideas got uncovered and illegally published.

The source, already widespreaded, will engourage other programmers to use ideas from it, even if the original source got banned by a restraining order. We will likely get more clones. Some may adapt their own bitboard infrastructure with the search and evaluation routines of Strelka, or simply replace identifiers or simplify some expressions. The less they understand the semantics and principles, the more likely they may simply copy and paste on syntactical level.

Is it for instance ethically correct now, to discuss or explain the ideas - to encourage people to implement those ideas on their own way?

Good statement Gerd !

Well, basicly i see a violation of the GPL, because the "author" used sources of two open-source programs at least.

The GPL doesn't know "illegal" or "legal" or ethical stuff. It's just a pure license how to handle the source.

The best solution would be that the russian webpage close the Strelka 2.0b sources offer as soon as possible.
The next step would be that Vas removes all lines of code which he thinks that could hurt coprights of Rybka. Finally the "clean" code will be released under GPL. It doesn't matter if the engine isn't runable after Vas cleanup action.

The copyright should be transfered to the FSF. (Free Software Foundation)

The FSF would be the owner of the sources. Its not really clear who can say thats my code and copyright. The problem is the "code-mix" of 3 programs or more.



Best,
Daniel

I disagree
Closing the source is too late now.
I am also not sure if Fabien claims that there was a violation of the GPL (he still said nothing about it)


From Vasik:

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforu ... =#pid39425

"I do not see obvious signs of other code usage, but perhaps this deserves a closer look. Some of the transplanted ideas, such as the null verification search, are rather naive implementations of the approach in Fruit/Toga, although my first impression is that that code itself is original. "

If we do not include fabien and Vasik I know no programmer that there is a claim that his code is used in strelka2.0 so I do not understand how do you get
"The problem is the "code-mix" of 3 programs or more."

I think that we have at most mix of 2 programs (rybka and fruit)
There was a claim about using crafty's code but it is not relevant because the relevant code is in version1.8 and the example of ryan was also a bad example because some code of random numbers is not chess code.

Uri

[Rolf]

With hindsight - after Vasik's statement - Strelka's source shouldn't be published. It is a great source, but contains reverse engeneered stuff from a commercial program. The bitboard infra-structure, the unique way to index and use pre-calculated tables by pawn-structure and material etc..

How would chessbase act, if somebody publishes decompiled fritz-sources?

The ethical dilemma now - the idea of science (and open source) to share and publish ideas - versus the violated vital interests of a commercial programmer, whose initial ideas got uncovered and illegally published.

The source, already widespreaded, will engourage other programmers to use ideas from it, even if the original source got banned by a restraining order. We will likely get more clones. Some may adapt their own bitboard infrastructure with the search and evaluation routines of Strelka, or simply replace identifiers or simplify some expressions. The less they understand the semantics and principles, the more likely they may simply copy and paste on syntactical level.

Is it for instance ethically correct now, to discuss or explain the ideas - to encourage people to implement those ideas on their own way?

Ethically correct could be united attempts to search and destroy the sort of existence of someone like this anonymous figure. Then it would follow out of itself that everybody who suddenly appears on tournaments with nothing but Strelka that he's discriminated with the same contempt. However if someone makes his own program much stronger than everyone else then it should be clear that this cant have succeeded with copy and past alone. That is exactly what Vas has proven and what the many commercial guys couldnt achieve because they could also well copy but not improve the new ideas into their environment.

Now you might ask where the beef is after such a procedure. Easy one. If we all saw how such an offender would then lose all chances to exist in our community no future talent will intentiously sacrifice his own life expectances only to harm an honest member of our community.

But even more relevant. If behind one alleged Osipov there were a commercial industry which organised this out of frustration because of their own shrinking chances on the market, it should then be clear that this means the death of the whole company in follow-up of a worldwide boycott.

But first let's search for Osipov...

[Eelco de Groot]

It appears that it was ethically wrong to disassemble Rybka in the first place, but I think it was the best decision to make the source available to all people, instead of making them available to only 'selected' people. As soon as some persons got the source, and could analyze or modify it, I felt that it was only fair if everybody had the chance to do so. So I'm glad the sources are available now. Furthermore, the Rybka version it derives from is 2 years old, as I understand.

I don't really want to get in on this discussion, but I don't really understand this. Publishing the sources from strelka was of course no friendly act. The people that do this, they are just the equivalent of programming hooligans, or whatever term you want to come up with, they do this for the attention they are getting and the interest people have in learning about programming ideas that were not meant to be made public by the author.

Is it okay to rob a bank as long as you don't keep the money for yourself but give it away to everybody else, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor? Osipov as Robin Hood? 'Hood' is right, Robin Hood I don't think so...

There is really no waterproof programming way to protect the intellectual property of programmers ideas for long by encryption, obfuscation or whatever, but if a whole community of looters actively would start banding together to decipher commercial programs, chess programs in this case, publishing the sources for everybody, to spread as many clones as possible, under any name they can come up with, what chance do you stand as a lone commercial programmer against that?

This does not hurt computer chess? Would you justify this? Come on people!

Eelco

[Rolf]

It appears that it was ethically wrong to disassemble Rybka in the first place, but I think it was the best decision to make the source available to all people, instead of making them available to only 'selected' people. As soon as some persons got the source, and could analyze or modify it, I felt that it was only fair if everybody had the chance to do so. So I'm glad the sources are available now. Furthermore, the Rybka version it derives from is 2 years old, as I understand.

I don't really want to get in on this discussion, but I don't really understand this. Publishing the sources from strelka was of course no friendly act. The people that do this, they are just the equivalent of programming hooligans, or whatever term you want to come up with, they do this for the attention they are getting and the interest people have in learning about programming ideas that were not meant to be made public by the author.

Is it okay to rob a bank as long as you don't keep the money for yourself but give it away to everybody else, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor? Osipov as Robin Hood? 'Hood' is right, Robin Hood I don't think so...

There is really no waterproof programming way to protect the intellectual property of programmers ideas for long by encryption, obfuscation or whatever, but if a whole community of looters actively would start banding together to decipher commercial programs, chess programs in this case, publishing the sources for everybody, to spread as many clones as possible, under any name they can come up with, what chance do you stand as a lone commercial programmer against that?

This does not hurt computer chess? Would you justify this? Come on people!

Eelco

Thanks for stepping in against your strong aversion. It's not as simple as you imply with your cool "Come on people" as if the conflict is basically a little slip of concentration, focussing or attention. The reason lies deeper. Technical talent in programming doesnt seem to exclude the overlooking of a strict impossibility to debate objectively a conflict between an anonymous offender and a well established good name. A computercfhess programmer begins to ponder the possible good sides of the basically evil activity. Sure, it might be morally wrong but it doesnt hurt computerchess in the long run. This is what Uri means. However you made the neccessary objection. With what motivation someone should work hard for years if he had to fear that his competitors would then get the results of his work for free (although morally not kosher)? If we then consider the rather small money resulting from yearlong work and even that is ridiculised by a "all you can eat" population, then we must admit that we are already living in Ratatouille land.

If we dont want that we must catch this Osipov figure and brand him for the best of the future of computerchess. Of course we have the alternate path of enforcing masochism on our experts which would then be a nice business for psychologists and satirical writers.

[Guetti]

It appears that it was ethically wrong to disassemble Rybka in the first place, but I think it was the best decision to make the source available to all people, instead of making them available to only 'selected' people. As soon as some persons got the source, and could analyze or modify it, I felt that it was only fair if everybody had the chance to do so. So I'm glad the sources are available now. Furthermore, the Rybka version it derives from is 2 years old, as I understand.

I don't really want to get in on this discussion, but I don't really understand this. Publishing the sources from strelka was of course no friendly act. The people that do this, they are just the equivalent of programming hooligans, or whatever term you want to come up with, they do this for the attention they are getting and the interest people have in learning about programming ideas that were not meant to be made public by the author.

Is it okay to rob a bank as long as you don't keep the money for yourself but give it away to everybody else, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor? Osipov as Robin Hood? 'Hood' is right, Robin Hood I don't think so...

There is really no waterproof programming way to protect the intellectual property of programmers ideas for long by encryption, obfuscation or whatever, but if a whole community of looters actively would start banding together to decipher commercial programs, chess programs in this case, publishing the sources for everybody, to spread as many clones as possible, under any name they can come up with, what chance do you stand as a lone commercial programmer against that?

This does not hurt computer chess? Would you justify this? Come on people!

Eelco

Hm. You didn't understand what I wanted to say, probably because I didn't write it clear enough, english is mot my main language. Of course disassembling an engine is not ok at all, and it's even worse to give the source to somebody else!
But unfortunately, that happend already! Now, Osipov gave the disassembled source to some people he choose and some engine authors, giving them an advantage (in the competition of computer chess). After all this happened, I would consider it fair for other engine authors to also have access to the sources.
Just imagine Smarthink would show up now for CCT10 with a brand new and very strong engine and would win (just hypothetically). How do you think would all the engine authors feel, that would come out behind in the tournament?

[Uri Blass]

With hindsight - after Vasik's statement - Strelka's source shouldn't be published. It is a great source, but contains reverse engeneered stuff from a commercial program. The bitboard infra-structure, the unique way to index and use pre-calculated tables by pawn-structure and material etc..

How would chessbase act, if somebody publishes decompiled fritz-sources?

The ethical dilemma now - the idea of science (and open source) to share and publish ideas - versus the violated vital interests of a commercial programmer, whose initial ideas got uncovered and illegally published.

The source, already widespreaded, will engourage other programmers to use ideas from it, even if the original source got banned by a restraining order. We will likely get more clones. Some may adapt their own bitboard infrastructure with the search and evaluation routines of Strelka, or simply replace identifiers or simplify some expressions. The less they understand the semantics and principles, the more likely they may simply copy and paste on syntactical level.

Is it for instance ethically correct now, to discuss or explain the ideas - to encourage people to implement those ideas on their own way?

Good statement Gerd !

Well, basicly i see a violation of the GPL, because the "author" used sources of two open-source programs at least.

The GPL doesn't know "illegal" or "legal" or ethical stuff. It's just a pure license how to handle the source.

The best solution would be that the russian webpage close the Strelka 2.0b sources offer as soon as possible.
The next step would be that Vas removes all lines of code which he thinks that could hurt coprights of Rybka. Finally the "clean" code will be released under GPL. It doesn't matter if the engine isn't runable after Vas cleanup action.

The copyright should be transfered to the FSF. (Free Software Foundation)

The FSF would be the owner of the sources. Its not really clear who can say thats my code and copyright. The problem is the "code-mix" of 3 programs or more.



Best,
Daniel

I now understand what third code you talk about.

GCP mentioned Beowulf in another thread
http://f23.parsimony.net/forum50826/messages/177406.htm

I never thought to look at that code because Beowulf is relatively a weak program.

I still do not see the problem with releasing the code as free source.

Tord said in the past that people can take code of glaurung in order to release open source toga that is using parallel search so it is allowed to take source from more than one open source.

Uri