ethical dilemma

[Albert Silver]

Till now still noone of Rybka fans can not give an answer in case that Strelka was a Rybka clone:
1.Why Osipov gave such a suspicious name of his first engine? If he wanted to hide his engine origins, he could name it Youri Chess 0.01 or some.

I think it's only suspicious to foreigners, and he may not have seen it is suspicious at all. After all, Strelka (and Belka) is the name of a famous Russian space dog. It is not the word 'dog', and to a Russian, there might not seem to be any link to the word Rybka at all.

2.Why he didn't went commercial? His sources would have been closed and noone could demanded them.

Well, he offered Convekta, explaining Strelka's origins, and they said it was up to Vas, and Vas declined. Osipov asked Vas twice in fact, and was turned down both times.

3.Why he published sources of his engine if it was a clone? Why he shared this source to other engine authors?

Who can say? Vindictiveness? Other reasons?

4.And finally -- why he decompiled weaker version of Rybka to make his engine? Why not final one?
Please, share your answers.

He had probably spent quite a lot of time decompiling and studying Rybka 1.0 beta as it was, and the latest build has gone a long way since. But it could simply have been fear of going to far.

Albert

[Uri Blass]

Till now still noone of Rybka fans can not give an answer in case that Strelka was a Rybka clone:
1.Why Osipov gave such a suspicious name of his first engine? If he wanted to hide his engine origins, he could name it Youri Chess 0.01 or some.
2.Why he didn't went commercial? His sources would have been closed and noone could demanded them.
3.Why he published sources of his engine if it was a clone? Why he shared this source to other engine authors?
4.And finally -- why he decompiled weaker version of Rybka to make his engine? Why not final one?
Please, share your answers.

1)Osipov did not try to hide the fact that strelka is based on rybka.
2)Osipov did not want to make money out of strelka
3)I guess that he was proud of what he did so why not
4)For the simple reason that when he started he had the beta version and not the final one.
Note also that Vas allowed using the beta with no restrictions and maybe he was afraid that decompiling the commercial version is going to get him into trouble when doing the same only to the beta version is not the same.

Uri

[Albert Silver]

Till now still noone of Rybka fans can not give an answer in case that Strelka was a Rybka clone:
1.Why Osipov gave such a suspicious name of his first engine? If he wanted to hide his engine origins, he could name it Youri Chess 0.01 or some.
2.Why he didn't went commercial? His sources would have been closed and noone could demanded them.
3.Why he published sources of his engine if it was a clone? Why he shared this source to other engine authors?
4.And finally -- why he decompiled weaker version of Rybka to make his engine? Why not final one?
Please, share your answers.

2)Osipov did not want to make money out of strelka

No, that's not true. Osipov sent Strelka to Convekta with the purpose of publishing it. He was open about its origins, so the decision was left to Vas. Vas declined. Since neither Vas nor Osipov could understand each other directly, all correspondence went through Convekta, who translated it on their behalf. Osipov was insistent though, and asked Vas to please reconsider his position, but the refusal was repeated.

Albert

[Andrej Sidorov]

No, that's not true. Osipov sent Strelka to Convekta with the purpose of publishing it.

It's not true.

I sent proposals
to a few engine authors for making their engines mobile and to release with Convekta GUI. One of them was Yuri Osipov. He agreed to publish his engine.

http://f22.parsimony.net/forum41668/messages/46023.htm[/quote]

At this moment Strelka for PC was already released and free.

[Albert Silver]

No, that's not true. Osipov sent Strelka to Convekta with the purpose of publishing it.

It's not true.

I sent proposals
to a few engine authors for making their engines mobile and to release with Convekta GUI. One of them was Yuri Osipov. He agreed to publish his engine.

http://f22.parsimony.net/forum41668/messages/46023.htm

What part don't you understand about publishing? Or do you think this is a non-profit idea?

Albert

[pedrox]

No, that's not true. Osipov sent Strelka to Convekta with the purpose of publishing it.

It's not true.

I sent proposals
to a few engine authors for making their engines mobile and to release with Convekta GUI. One of them was Yuri Osipov. He agreed to publish his engine.

http://f22.parsimony.net/forum41668/messages/46023.htm

What part don't you understand about publishing? Or do you think this is a non-profit idea?

Albert

The words of Victor Zakharov are clear, so I do not see the reason to play with them.

Convekta is in contact with several developers and one of them is the developer of Strelka. If at that time the developer of Strelka offer money for her work I do not see anything wrong in accepting it, as Victor said the author of Stelka spoke clearly and said the origin of its programme and then came the refusal of Vas.

It was a mistake of Convekta not having studied before the origins of the program Strelka or not to be asked before Vas.

[Andrej Sidorov]

What part don't you understand about publishing? Or do you think this is a non-profit idea?
Albert

It wasn't Osipov who wanted commercialize Strelka (it was released free). It was Convekta who wanted commercialize mobile Strelka in Rybka GUI. Is this clear? It was internal business between Convekta and Rajlich.

[Albert Silver]

What part don't you understand about publishing? Or do you think this is a non-profit idea?
Albert

It wasn't Osipov who wanted commercialize Strelka (it was released free). It was Convekta who wanted commercialize mobile Strelka in Rybka GUI. Is this clear? It was internal business between Convekta and Rajlich.

I think you are being obtuse. It is true that Osipov didn't originate the idea of commercializing it, he did however support it, and repeatedly asked Vas to accept. When someone asks to repeatedly commercialize something, I interpret that as someone who wants it to be commercialized.

As an aside, no one had any doubts as to Strelka's origins, nor did anyone pretend otherwise. Strelka was viewed as a curious variant of Rybka. Osipov even offered to explain to Vas how he had done it, why (to build a program with Rybka as a starting point), and admitted it was a silly idea.

Albert

[Andrej Sidorov]

I think you are being obtuse. It is true that Osipov didn't originate the idea of commercializing it, he did however support it, and repeatedly asked Vas to accept. When someone asks to repeatedly commercialize something, I interpret that as someone who wants it to be commercialized.

Knowing about possible legal problems with Strelka we asked Vasik for his opinion about this. The message was sent by Osipov first and then I duplicated Osipov's message as Vasik didn't receive it. The answer was no. So this quesion was not considered any more.

Who is lying? You, Zakharov or Rajlich?

[pedrox]

It is true that Osipov didn't originate the idea of commercializing it, he did however support it, and repeatedly asked Vas to accept. When someone asks to repeatedly commercialize something, I interpret that as someone who wants it to be commercialized.
Albert

Albert, your interpretation on that Osipov could be interested in going to comercial is good, but it is important to know who initiated the contact, because the words of Vas appeared that the contact was initiated by Osipov.