tiger wrote:
The fact that Rybka 1.0 is derived from Fruit 2.1 is a common opinion amongst programmers, especially since the reconstructed source code of Rybka 1.0 has been published (it is Strelka 2.0).
For some reason this fact has remained such a taboo that very few established programmers have dared to state clearly their opinion about it.
Now evidence is posted here for everybody to build his own opinion.
The important point to keep in mind is that if the evidence is considered as convincing it will demonstrate that an open source program has been used against the spirit of open source.
More specifically, the evidence is posted to show that a work derived from GPL'ed source code has been published as closed source, when the spirit of the GPL licence under which the original work was published is to always allow the source code to be kept open and shared. It is not only against the spirit, it is also explicitely forbidden by the GPL licence, which is the licence the author of the original work has chosen.
// Christophe
Often something shows only indirectly that and why it's worthless. And this is the case with this whole message.
Here a programmer, experienced technically as he might be, I can only trust Bob regarding this point, is talking too much about showing, forbidden, published, but also about spirit, taboo, opinion and fact, and all what he shows with all this is that he has nothing.
Because if it were different, this would mean a court case. Because only this could legally prove anything. While this here is a political campaign from a tech knowie programmer who cant find the linkage from his tech to what he's really doing and implying on a social and psychological level.
It's also important to remember, that messages like mine here must be carefully pronounced because other than the tech knowie who is allowed of the whole shameful campaign against other collegues in computerchess it is almost tabooed if it's described and criticised from an expert in psychological and sociological terms. As if the community couldnt understand that a tech knowie level by definition is sub-optimal to analyse itself for the positivistic reasons which can be learned elsewhere. If you want to criticise such a limited tech sphere there is but one possibility and that is from outside so to speak with social psychology.
Just to summarize what that angle allows me to conclude. The many professionals weho have read of the CT campaign cant want to openly enter such a debate because to a community with a rest of ethical considerations it would look strange if people raise their fingers and point on a scapegoat for a practice that they themselves are potentially also guilty of. At least that then their own work would be questioned.
That context is so trivial and easy to understand that it really takes a tech knowie wih a very resticted view, one could call it 1-dimensional somewhat, who continues to propagate his limited perception. Not only that, he's now already on the lane where he thinks he can trust the deafening silence frfom his collegues as if that would mean that his restrictions have not yet been widely noticed. So here we have a clear aspect of tragical comedy content.
