Rolf wrote: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.
Rolf, I have to make detecting plagiarism a daily task when students turn in programming assignments. Most are too intelligent to just give me duplicate copies. They change variables. They change from a "for" loop (talking C here) to a "while" loop. They change the comments and the way they are structured. But the underlying structure of the program is still there to see. There are even software tools that help with this, as this is a problem at all universities, and some have spent a lot of time trying to develop automated tools to help.
The bottom line is that for regular programming assignments, there are _so_ many different ways to write a program that will take the same input and produce the same output, that the probability of two students writing nearly the same code/algorithm is extremely small. A chess program goes _far_ beyond the complexity of these assignments (and we even have an othello assignment in the AI class, which while not nearly as complex as chess is nevertheless very complex). The probability that program A will have major parts written _exactly_ the same as program B is not just vanishingly small. The old saying about putting enough monkeys in a room full of typewriters, and give them enough time, and one will manage to type the complete text of Lincoln's Gettyesburg address is a good example. It will probably happen with a probability > 0.00, but it is also probably going to take a _long_ time, and a _lot_ of monkeys.
I have not been one of the investigators here. But from what I have seen, it is pretty clear. And it isn't _that_ uncommon an experience. But the problem is amplified when the new program becomes commercial. "Standing on the shoulders of giants" is one thing. But ripping hunks out of the giants is a completely different matter.
From what I have seen, the case is becoming very clear. whether you like the conclusion or not notwithstanding. This is beyond the bounds of reasonable probability that it "happened by chance". Even small parts of chess engines (take the move generator which has a fixed input (a position) and a fixed output (a set of either legal or pseudo-legal moves) looking nothing alike when you compare them. Crafty would be a good example of comparison. Take gnuchess as an example, and compare the two programs. You might occasionally find a single printf() that matches since both support the winboard protocol, but no piece of code of any significant size will match up. Not the search, not the winboard communication, not the evaluation, not anything. That is the norm for every program I have looked at. I have looked at several open-source programs, and when I compare I find "ideas" that obviously came from Crafty in several places. I very rarely find "code".
So what is being presented here is both serious and accurate as best I can tell. While some might not like the conclusions, the evidence has a lot of factual weight behind it. It would be better to try and attack the evidence, rather than the presenter, because the evidence looks to be quite damning.
I'm old enough that I don't really care about this stuff. I have slowly learned that human nature is what it is. People lie, cheat, steal, kill, etc all the time and most of us depend on law enforcement to deal with it, having seen it for so many years. There have been so many "clone wars" over the years, some involving me, some (this one) not. But it isn't new. And it probably isn't going to suddenly go away either. To quote a former president, "it is what it is" but it depends on the meaning of "is"..
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.
Something tells me this will _never_ become a "court case". The risks are _way_ too high with this volume of evidence to support the person being sued over this claim. Only a fool would start such an action given the potential risks of losing, which in my opinion would be extremely likely given what has been shown so far.
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.
Problem is, you are not qualified to weigh in on the discussion. This could likely turn _very_ ugly if people trained in copyright infringement become involved. recognizing copied code is not easy, but there are software tools that will do this with high accuracy. I believe Stanford developed such a system and made it public. And something tells me no one will take that source and try to copy it and call it their own, either.
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.
I think that most have simply come to accept this as a common action, and have concluded that it just a part of computer chess from here on. I rest with the attitude that I know that whatever I have done in the past was my work, and my work alone (excepting that I do get help with Crafty of course, with Tracy, Mike and Peter, just as I did with Cray Blitz with Harry and Bert). I have not cheated in games using things like "move now" or providing other hints to the program, unlike some that have even been caught on video tape. When I win an event, our group can feel pride in doing so, untainted by the knowledge that we stole something from someone else. And that is good enough for us. We don't have the time nor energy to dwell on "how did they do that, did they cheat? did they copy code? etc. And a lot of us (not all) feel that way. And we can sleep at night knowing that _our_ actions are ethical. And we don't lose sleep over others that are not so ethical. Otherwise we would never sleep.
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.
The evidence is convincing to those of us that understand software development. I have not personally validated the evidence, but several that I trust highly have done so. If you are unhappy with the conclusions, you are single-handedly keeping this story alive and active with your protests over and over and over.
