Fruit 2.1 vs Strelka 2.0

[Guetti]

OK, then as Fruit 2.1 is GPL and as far as we know there has been no special autorization given by Fabien to anyone, I think we are asking legitimate questions.

Of course. I just wanted to make a statement that it is not the same if somebody uses some open source code with the permission of the author with his own license (aka Crafty) or if somebody uses some code form a GPL project (aka Fruit2.1).
I consider some lines of code used with permission of the author not per se as bad, it depends on the circumstances.
Therefore I think your attack against Uri was not fair in respect of the pgn code from crafty. However I don't know how much fruit code is in Movei, if that was the code Movei had to be under GPL.

(By the was, while reading this discussion I realized that I used the same random numbers as fruit, which are GPL, maybe I have to change that should my engine ever leave my harddisk.)

And if Fabien has given or give a special authorization at any time in the future, I hope the same authorization will be given to everybody, not just one commercial entity.

Well, this is dubious. I'm not enough of an expert. Can the same code be GPL and commercial? I mean we are taking about a considerable number of lines of code, not just a function. Can the source of a GPL project used as a starting point to a commercial product? I don't know the answer to this.




// Christophe[/quote]

[Harvey Williamson]

I recently asked Fabien if he gives his permission for Cluster Toga to play at the World Championship in China. He answered that he has. Does this mean the Cluster Toga team must Publish the source? Or only if they release the engine?

[Zach Wegner]

Or only if they release the engine?

Unfortunately, yes.

[tiger]

OK, then as Fruit 2.1 is GPL and as far as we know there has been no special autorization given by Fabien to anyone, I think we are asking legitimate questions.

Of course. I just wanted to make a statement that it is not the same if somebody uses some open source code with the permission of the author with his own license (aka Crafty) or if somebody uses some code form a GPL project (aka Fruit2.1).
I consider some lines of code used with permission of the author not per se as bad, it depends on the circumstances.
Therefore I think your attack against Uri was not fair in respect of the pgn code from crafty. However I don't know how much fruit code is in Movei, if that was the code Movei had to be under GPL.

Sorry but what attack are you talking about?

(By the was, while reading this discussion I realized that I used the same random numbers as fruit, which are GPL, maybe I have to change that should my engine ever leave my harddisk.)

And if Fabien has given or give a special authorization at any time in the future, I hope the same authorization will be given to everybody, not just one commercial entity.

Well, this is dubious. I'm not enough of an expert. Can the same code be GPL and commercial? I mean we are taking about a considerable number of lines of code, not just a function.

Can I read here that you have looked at the posted evidence and that your opinion is that large parts of the code were re-used?

Can the source of a GPL project used as a starting point to a commercial product? I don't know the answer to this.




// Christophe

[/quote]



As far as I know, a source code can be at the same time GPL and also licenced BY THE AUTHOR and with EXPRESS PRIOR PERMISSION to be used in a commercial closed-source product.

Maybe one day we will hear that Fabien has licenced Fruit's source code to Vas, but at this time this is not, to the best of our knowledge, the case. So we keep asking questions.



// Christophe

[tiger]

From my point of view as long as Fabien has no objection there should be no problem with not releasing the code of rybka1.

Uri

No, no, no, no.
Fabien released Fruit under the GPL, it was a decision, so any code taken from this GPL project has to confer to the GPL. This is not the same as if you share some code with a private open source project as crafty.

open source != GPL

So what is possible to do if Fabien does not complain.

What you can practically do against Vasik except asking not to alllow rybka to play in tournaments?

Uri

You mean you want something to be done against Vas?



// Christophe

[Guetti]

From my point of view as long as Fabien has no objection there should be no problem with not releasing the code of rybka1.

Uri

No, no, no, no.
Fabien released Fruit under the GPL, it was a decision, so any code taken from this GPL project has to confer to the GPL. This is not the same as if you share some code with a private open source project as crafty.

open source != GPL

So what is possible to do if Fabien does not complain.

What you can practically do against Vasik except asking not to alllow rybka to play in tournaments?

Uri

Nothing. Only Fabien can do something. From the GPL:

The text of the GPL is itself copyrighted, and the copyright is held by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). However, the FSF does not hold the copyright for a work released under the GPL, unless an author explicitly assigns copyrights to the FSF (which seldom happens except for programs that are part of the GNU project). Only the individual copyright holders have the authority to sue when a license violation takes place.
The FSF permits people to create new licenses based on the GPL, as long as the derived licenses do not use the GPL preamble without permission. This is discouraged, however, since such a license is generally incompatible with the GPL.

[Guetti]

Can I read here that you have looked at the posted evidence and that your opinion is that large parts of the code were re-used?

I (briefly) looked at the evidence on page 1 of this thread and the posts from Zach in another thread. I didn't look myself into the sources of Strelka or Fruit.

If you didn't attack Uri about not being neutral about this case because of using pgn code from crafty, then forget about that passage in my previous post.

[Uri Blass]

OK, then as Fruit 2.1 is GPL and as far as we know there has been no special autorization given by Fabien to anyone, I think we are asking legitimate questions.

Of course. I just wanted to make a statement that it is not the same if somebody uses some open source code with the permission of the author with his own license (aka Crafty) or if somebody uses some code form a GPL project (aka Fruit2.1).
I consider some lines of code used with permission of the author not per se as bad, it depends on the circumstances.
Therefore I think your attack against Uri was not fair in respect of the pgn code from crafty. However I don't know how much fruit code is in Movei, if that was the code Movei had to be under GPL.

(By the was, while reading this discussion I realized that I used the same random numbers as fruit, which are GPL, maybe I have to change that should my engine ever leave my harddisk.)

And if Fabien has given or give a special authorization at any time in the future, I hope the same authorization will be given to everybody, not just one commercial entity.

Well, this is dubious. I'm not enough of an expert. Can the same code be GPL and commercial? I mean we are taking about a considerable number of lines of code, not just a function. Can the source of a GPL project used as a starting point to a commercial product? I don't know the answer to this.




// Christophe

[/quote]

I am going to say only that I do not use code from fruit.
I use some ideas from fruit in the evaluation like average between opening evaluation and endgame evaluation based on stage of the game
but not copy and paste and I simply understood the evaluation of fruit in english words and translated modified version of what I understood to code.

Uri

[Uri Blass]

From my point of view as long as Fabien has no objection there should be no problem with not releasing the code of rybka1.

Uri

No, no, no, no.
Fabien released Fruit under the GPL, it was a decision, so any code taken from this GPL project has to confer to the GPL. This is not the same as if you share some code with a private open source project as crafty.

open source != GPL

So what is possible to do if Fabien does not complain.

What you can practically do against Vasik except asking not to alllow rybka to play in tournaments?

Uri

You mean you want something to be done against Vas?



// Christophe

I mean what is the target of the discussion.

If you cannot convince Fabien to complain then you can do nothing against Vas and you can claim that Vas did a mistake when he claimed strelka to be his own code but it seems that he is going to pay nothing for that mistake so maybe it was not a mistake.

Uri

[tiger]

From my point of view as long as Fabien has no objection there should be no problem with not releasing the code of rybka1.

Uri

No, no, no, no.
Fabien released Fruit under the GPL, it was a decision, so any code taken from this GPL project has to confer to the GPL. This is not the same as if you share some code with a private open source project as crafty.

open source != GPL

So what is possible to do if Fabien does not complain.

What you can practically do against Vasik except asking not to alllow rybka to play in tournaments?

Uri

You mean you want something to be done against Vas?



// Christophe

I mean what is the target of the discussion.

If you cannot convince Fabien to complain then you can do nothing against Vas and you can claim that Vas did a mistake when he claimed strelka to be his own code but it seems that he is going to pay nothing for that mistake so maybe it was not a mistake.

Uri

If it is not a mistake to use open source and then claim it as his own code, which has maybe happened and which is the point of posting the evidence, then there is a lesson to learn for all chess programmers: everybody is allowed to do it.

That makes a real difference and creates a precedent and sets new rules.

At least we will know that there is absolutely no risk when you take code that is not yours, even if it is protected, and we will be able to expand the scope of our work by picking parts where we want.

So maybe a significant advance in computer chess is going to come out of this.



// Christophe