Last Rybka Thread for now...

[chrisw]

If any code is taken it is certainly relevent what and how much.

Only to the extent of obtaining needed proof. Ethically, "what" and "how much" are irrelevant.

Defence lawyer will demand the following:

1. Prove the code in the GPL program is original and not available anywhere else. For the UCI code or substantial chunks of it that is not going to be easy or possible.

I doubt it. By the time he gets to his defense, it will have presumably already been established that the defendant actually has copied code, presumably GPL'd code. If he borrowed it from elsewhere, it's up to the defense to show that.

6. Explain why you complaint is not vexatious. Defence will declare it is, and provide plenty of CCC posts to demonstrate vexatiousness.

Very funny. If the defense uses CCC posts to demonstrate anything, then it has already lost. Now, I looked up Vexatious litigation because I didn't know what it was. I think you should too, because you clearly don't.

7. Explain why your case should not be thrown right out of court with demand for costs.

Again, the judge would have already thrown out the case if this had merit. This would be argued before and after the case, not during.

Not funny at all. Vexatious litigation ......

Vexatious litigation is legal action which is brought, regardless of its merits, solely to harass or subdue an adversary. It may take the form of a primary frivolous lawsuit or may be the repetitive, burdensome, and unwarranted filing of meritless motions in a matter which is otherwise a meritorious cause of action. Filing vexatious litigation is considered an abuse of the judicial process and may bring down sanctions on the offender.

Some here would and have argued the purpose of all this stuff here is indeed to harass an adversary into (a) not competing in China, (b) reveal his source code. Whether true in all cases here not relevent, any defence will use it though, finding quotes as necessary.

Too easy. I'm not going to china. Is Zach? Don't know. But since I am not going, you would have a tough time proving my intent was to prevent someone else from going...

this is all nonsense, still...

It would be the intent of whoever brought the case (not that anyone will). In which event, if that person was operating here, and in the event of loss of case, he would be tarnished by some of the stuff that has already been said, here.

[tiger]

1. I believe you miss the point

Let A = some precursor program
Let B = Fruit protected by GPL
Let C = Rybka, allegadly copying piece of Fruit

To prove C copied a code chunk from B in contravention of the GPL, you need to prove that code chunk was original and hence protectable by the GPL. Not all of B is protected, is it?

If in fact A contained something similar, for example a piece of UCI code that transmitted the desired user thinking time parameter, then the fact that chunk C is similar to chunk B (allegedly) would be negated by the fact that chunk B may be similar to chunk A.

My point was this: since all programs have to handle in the UCI simple stuff like how many seconds can I think for, please; you'll need to demonstrate that similar code does not exist across many other engines. And it very probably will.

2. Well, good we agree. The question of trivial/non-trivial is important and subject to judgement. Therefore you need to demonstrate some standard of non-triviliaty. We can argue what this standard is, but importantly, we've agreed that there's a line between trivial andf non-trivial and your sides case has to cross that lien decisively. I don't think use of setjmp() or some time parameter passing code does that for you. My opinion.

(warning: the above is use of the argument: "one single line of code cannot violate any copyright, so 4000 of them cannot either")

3. You forgot to define substantive. Unsurprisingly, because you can't. It's a judgement call. Bits of non-parallel UCI code full of "Fruit does something different here" won't wash. imo.

4. This constant reference to the tricks of your students won't wash either. Where is the evidence of so much as one "trick" in Rybka sources? Hmmm? That's right, there isn't one. Your comments are just slurs by association.

5. The massive difference and huge ELO leap of Rybka are as described by Fernando. A new work in all variations.

(warning: the above is use of the argument: "it has different features so it cannot be a derivative work")

6. If it ever came to costs, the vexatious litigant would find out soon enough when his motives were revealed by the use of published documentation.

[chrisw]

1. I believe you miss the point

Let A = some precursor program
Let B = Fruit protected by GPL
Let C = Rybka, allegadly copying piece of Fruit

To prove C copied a code chunk from B in contravention of the GPL, you need to prove that code chunk was original and hence protectable by the GPL. Not all of B is protected, is it?

If in fact A contained something similar, for example a piece of UCI code that transmitted the desired user thinking time parameter, then the fact that chunk C is similar to chunk B (allegedly) would be negated by the fact that chunk B may be similar to chunk A.

My point was this: since all programs have to handle in the UCI simple stuff like how many seconds can I think for, please; you'll need to demonstrate that similar code does not exist across many other engines. And it very probably will.

2. Well, good we agree. The question of trivial/non-trivial is important and subject to judgement. Therefore you need to demonstrate some standard of non-triviliaty. We can argue what this standard is, but importantly, we've agreed that there's a line between trivial andf non-trivial and your sides case has to cross that lien decisively. I don't think use of setjmp() or some time parameter passing code does that for you. My opinion.

(warning: the above is use of the argument: "one single line of code cannot violate any copyright, so 4000 of them cannot either")

Hahaha!! Tres drole, Christophe.

Where's your 4000 lines of consecutive matching code?

Let's see it. Will it be full of the same stuff as previous ...

"Fruit does something different here"

"Rybka adds 2 here"?

every alternate line? because that is the best you've done so far, with trivial UCI parameter passing code that doesn't even match up.

Very, very weak.

[GenoM]

it can be an explanation to Rybka's way to show nps and depth.
Just Rajlich made these lines in such way to be out of GPL?

[tiger]

7. Explain why your case should not be thrown right out of court with demand for costs.

I don't plan to go to court with it. I think you missunderstood my first post, everyone shall decide for himself if it is enough or not. I will not convince you, and you will not convince me.

Fair enough, I understand. But.

If you talk GPL licence, you talk legal. If you talk legal then it's fair to step ahead into a possible legal process. I argue that the thought experiment of stepping into legal process is going to be enough to make anyone recoil from it. Hence the GPL licence talk is weakened to zero as the GPL, is basically unenforcable even if the breaches you argue have taken place.

Finally you say it!

Wow! How many days of arguing using absurd reasoning against the provided evidence?

Wouldn't have been simpler to state it right from the start?

"Zach, Christophe, Norman, we don't care about any evidence, the GPL is invalid anyway."

As far as I can see, there are two programmers arguing against the evidence: you and Uri. And both of you have stated now that they think the GPL is invalid.
// Christophe

Christophe, the reason I don't usually bother responding to your posts is because I would not be responding to factual material or factual arguments but to your distorted and fantased interpretation of what I am saying. Commonly known as the straw man.

When you stop with the pre-assumptive statements "absurb reasoning", "we don't care about any evidence" and so on, I might be bothered to make a sensible communication, but I don't feel obliged to talk with or in propaganda mode. That's for posturing purposes only, imo.

As to the GPL. Hardly an impressive document, imo. Made by well motivated amateurs. Unfortunately they forget there's a real world out there.

So I'm correct if I say that you do not care about the GPL because it is invalid, in your opinion.

I think it's a very important point that could have been said a thousands of posts ago.



// Christophe

No, again you try to put words into my mouth. Again trying to set up straw man.

I think the GPL is not enforcable in cases where heavy modification of the GPL protected code has been made. I think it is enforcable for someone who changed 10% or 5% and tried calling it his own. But a massive rewrite, no way. Not that I believe this happened in the case in question anyway.

I also think that any person assigning his code into GPL licence knows perfectly well that he is only really potentially stopping the kind of usage that turned Crafty in Drafty or whatever they called it back whenever. Ie fiddling with text strings, calling it your own name and so on. The licensor knows perfectly well that competitors and other persons are going to be majorly hacking his stuff and pinching things, either lifting code or lifting knowledge. My guess is that Fabien understood that from the start, which is why he apparently shows little concern now. Did he use GPL because it was the best choice out of several or did he use it because it was all there was?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm trying to understand your thoughts by rephrasing them in simple terms. So you can correct me if I am wrong:

- The GPL cannot be enforced if I start from a GPL-protected source and change enough of it.

- Fabien knew from the start that derivated work including starting from his source and not only taking ideas would appear, so if the license explicitely prevents this, then it is not faithful to his real intentions.



// Christophe

[kranium]

Hahaha!! Tres drole, Christophe.

Where's your 4000 lines of consecutive matching code?

Let's see it. Will it be full of the same stuff as previous ...

"Fruit does something different here"

"Rybka adds 2 here"?

every alternate line? because that is the best you've done so far, with trivial UCI parameter passing code that doesn't even match up.

Very, very weak.

chris
the GPL doesn't specifiy that parts are 'trivial' and parts are 'important'.
that's coming from you.
and there are quite a few lines (many) that match up perfectly, you know that.

[chrisw]

7. Explain why your case should not be thrown right out of court with demand for costs.

I don't plan to go to court with it. I think you missunderstood my first post, everyone shall decide for himself if it is enough or not. I will not convince you, and you will not convince me.

Fair enough, I understand. But.

If you talk GPL licence, you talk legal. If you talk legal then it's fair to step ahead into a possible legal process. I argue that the thought experiment of stepping into legal process is going to be enough to make anyone recoil from it. Hence the GPL licence talk is weakened to zero as the GPL, is basically unenforcable even if the breaches you argue have taken place.

Finally you say it!

Wow! How many days of arguing using absurd reasoning against the provided evidence?

Wouldn't have been simpler to state it right from the start?

"Zach, Christophe, Norman, we don't care about any evidence, the GPL is invalid anyway."

As far as I can see, there are two programmers arguing against the evidence: you and Uri. And both of you have stated now that they think the GPL is invalid.
// Christophe

Christophe, the reason I don't usually bother responding to your posts is because I would not be responding to factual material or factual arguments but to your distorted and fantased interpretation of what I am saying. Commonly known as the straw man.

When you stop with the pre-assumptive statements "absurb reasoning", "we don't care about any evidence" and so on, I might be bothered to make a sensible communication, but I don't feel obliged to talk with or in propaganda mode. That's for posturing purposes only, imo.

As to the GPL. Hardly an impressive document, imo. Made by well motivated amateurs. Unfortunately they forget there's a real world out there.

So I'm correct if I say that you do not care about the GPL because it is invalid, in your opinion.

I think it's a very important point that could have been said a thousands of posts ago.



// Christophe

No, again you try to put words into my mouth. Again trying to set up straw man.

I think the GPL is not enforcable in cases where heavy modification of the GPL protected code has been made. I think it is enforcable for someone who changed 10% or 5% and tried calling it his own. But a massive rewrite, no way. Not that I believe this happened in the case in question anyway.

I also think that any person assigning his code into GPL licence knows perfectly well that he is only really potentially stopping the kind of usage that turned Crafty in Drafty or whatever they called it back whenever. Ie fiddling with text strings, calling it your own name and so on. The licensor knows perfectly well that competitors and other persons are going to be majorly hacking his stuff and pinching things, either lifting code or lifting knowledge. My guess is that Fabien understood that from the start, which is why he apparently shows little concern now. Did he use GPL because it was the best choice out of several or did he use it because it was all there was?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm trying to understand your thoughts by rephrasing them in simple terms. So you can correct me if I am wrong:

- The GPL cannot be enforced if I start from a GPL-protected source and change enough of it.

- Fabien knew from the start that derivated work including starting from his source and not only taking ideas would appear, so if the license explicitely prevents this, then it is not faithful to his real intentions.



// Christophe

I don't want to second guess Fabien's intentions. Fact remains that GPL is off the shelf and unmodified and without alternatives. It is reasonable to assume it is used because it is all there is rather than because it does exactly what is wanted.

Are you suggesting Vas took Fabien's entire source and modified it bit by bit? That would be somewhat outrageous given the lack of evidence.

[bnemias]

I don't want to second guess Fabien's intentions. Fact remains that GPL is off the shelf and unmodified and without alternatives.

There are plenty of alternatives.

It is reasonable to assume it is used because it is all there is rather than because it does exactly what is wanted.

I thought this might be a possibility also, until I learned he transfered ownership to the FSF.

[tiger]

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, I'm trying to understand your thoughts by rephrasing them in simple terms. So you can correct me if I am wrong:

- The GPL cannot be enforced if I start from a GPL-protected source and change enough of it.

- Fabien knew from the start that derivated work including starting from his source and not only taking ideas would appear, so if the license explicitely prevents this, then it is not faithful to his real intentions.



// Christophe

I don't want to second guess Fabien's intentions. Fact remains that GPL is off the shelf and unmodified and without alternatives. It is reasonable to assume it is used because it is all there is rather than because it does exactly what is wanted.

Are you suggesting Vas took Fabien's entire source and modified it bit by bit? That would be somewhat outrageous given the lack of evidence.

I'm suggesting nothing, I just want to know exactly where you stand because so far you have been countering the evidence with effective but in my opinion deceiving arguments. Just my opinion of course.

But hundreds of posts could have been saved if you had expressed your true feelings about the issue earlier, namely that the GPL cannot be enforced in this case, not because violation has not occured but because proving it will be very difficult, and that proving it is anyway pointless because the license used by original author is maybe not reflecting very faithfully his intentions.



// Christophe

[rebel777]

Alexander,

You snipped my comments about:

1) the disassembler you used, preferable with download link;

2) The offsets in both executable of the alleged similar code chunks so a few of us can check ourselves.

3) List the assembler code of both chunks. Are they 100% identical? I would like to see with my own eyes.

Does this mean you are not planning to provide this informations? If you don't we just have to assume you have done your (fragile and vulnerable) work without any mistakes and misinterpretations of the code? With fragile and vulnerable I mean that re-engineering source code from an executable is a very tricky and complex process and open to many mistakes (bugs).

Furthermore you should be eager enough to fully realize that the job you are doing is subject to unconscious tunnel-vision. You guys have put your teeth in this, that's usually when a tunnel-vision is looming. Be aware.

So provide these informations, your work should be able to put under the microscope for some of us here to judge. Failing to do so makes all your work worthless. This C-code you published is not good enough.

My best,

Ed

1) Have you checked Fruit with other engines?

Regarding the output: Yes. Wach at my link.

2) The fact that you don't know if there possible is an agreement between Vas and Fabien

Yes, I said this some days ago. It's possible. We have to wait what happens now