Interesting excerpt from Fabien Letouzey interview

[Eelco de Groot]

And that is all nonsense, again. Similar algorithms does _not_ translate into similar code. I can't, for the life of me, imagine why anyone with any programming experience at all would keep raising this bogus point of view. It is simply nonsense. In my programming classes, I often wish it _was_ true, so that I would not have to look at so many different ways to do the same thing.

Bob,

I think that Fabien is simply saying there are not many new original ideas in Fruit, no new algorithms. There is nothing in it which he could claim a patent for, I do not know the exact term. Fabien does not mention the GPL anywhere in this part of the interview that I can see, so I do not understand your description of nonsense.

A GPL violation would be a direct use of literal code from Fruit. As I understand it. A derivative work from Fruit, I think that is a broader specification, where Fabien states he only used commonly known algorithms. Would that not be up to some debate, when is there enough evidence a program is a derivative work from Fruit. Instead of a program making use of ideas found in Fruit. Comparing dis-assembly code, it should be possible to point to literal copies, but proving that something is a derivative work but not fair use of ideas, I think that is a bit harder.

Just the way I understand things, just as an interested reader. Is it much more complicated than that?

Thanks,
Eelco

[BubbaTough]

I think that Fabien is simply saying there are not many new original ideas in Fruit

I would agree with this. When I looked it over some time ago, I wondered what all the fuss was about. What I find mystifying is how I could work for years on my program and still not be able to build something as strong as it .

-Sam

[tiger]

And that is all nonsense, again. Similar algorithms does _not_ translate into similar code. I can't, for the life of me, imagine why anyone with any programming experience at all would keep raising this bogus point of view. It is simply nonsense. In my programming classes, I often wish it _was_ true, so that I would not have to look at so many different ways to do the same thing.

Bob,

I think that Fabien is simply saying there are not many new original ideas in Fruit, no new algorithms. There is nothing in it which he could claim a patent for, I do not know the exact term. Fabien does not mention the GPL anywhere in this part of the interview that I can see, so I do not understand your description of nonsense.

A GPL violation would be a direct use of literal code from Fruit.

Not at all if the resulting code is published under the GPL. And it is the most important point of the GPL, it's about keeping what has been shared generously always open and shared, with no-one allowed to keep it secret and claim it as his own.



// Christophe

As I understand it. A derivative work from Fruit, I think that is a broader specification, where Fabien states he only used commonly known algorithms. Would that not be up to some debate, when is there enough evidence a program is a derivative work from Fruit. Instead of a program making use of ideas found in Fruit. Comparing dis-assembly code, it should be possible to point to literal copies, but proving that something is a derivative work but not fair use of ideas, I think that is a bit harder.

Just the way I understand things, just as an interested reader. Is it much more complicated than that?

Thanks,
Eelco

[gerold]

Fabien Letouzey Wrote:

Sorry for the dramatic style ... One positive point now: instead of seeing engine authors competing against each others, I see them as cooperating (mostly indirectly) and making progress together, since they have so much in common, whether they want it or not.

Yes, I like the idea of group of programmers co-operating and working together to bring in the strongest engine on the planet

Only Toga project has a few group of programmers but It doesn't seem like these group of people updating Toga are exactly co-operating and working together in emails.We see only the single version from one person, and other version from someone else etc

yes i agree...this is interesting.
i too like the idea.

if all this 'toga mara' stuff is true, (as it appears it might be),
toga would then be a lot closer to rybka in strength and provide some needed competition...
was said to be a 100-200 ELO point improvement, and beating v2.3.2?

that would be a very welcome development indeed...

Toga mara Hahahahahahahahahah

I can't believe you guys would fall for this.

[Zach Wegner]

I sure as hell didn't!

[kranium]

Fabien Letouzey Wrote:

Sorry for the dramatic style ... One positive point now: instead of seeing engine authors competing against each others, I see them as cooperating (mostly indirectly) and making progress together, since they have so much in common, whether they want it or not.

Yes, I like the idea of group of programmers co-operating and working together to bring in the strongest engine on the planet

Only Toga project has a few group of programmers but It doesn't seem like these group of people updating Toga are exactly co-operating and working together in emails.We see only the single version from one person, and other version from someone else etc

yes i agree...this is interesting.
i too like the idea.

if all this 'toga mara' stuff is true, (as it appears it might be),
toga would then be a lot closer to rybka in strength and provide some needed competition...
was said to be a 100-200 ELO point improvement, and beating v2.3.2?

that would be a very welcome development indeed...

Toga mara Hahahahahahahahahah

I can't believe you guys would fall for this.

yeah, i got taken in, but only after i read that eelco was testing it!

[gerold]

I sure as hell didn't!

I didn't think you was. You appear to have more on the ball

[bob]

And that is all nonsense, again. Similar algorithms does _not_ translate into similar code. I can't, for the life of me, imagine why anyone with any programming experience at all would keep raising this bogus point of view. It is simply nonsense. In my programming classes, I often wish it _was_ true, so that I would not have to look at so many different ways to do the same thing.

Bob,

I think that Fabien is simply saying there are not many new original ideas in Fruit, no new algorithms. There is nothing in it which he could claim a patent for, I do not know the exact term. Fabien does not mention the GPL anywhere in this part of the interview that I can see, so I do not understand your description of nonsense.

He mentions algorithms developed 30 years ago and tries (unintentionally, perhaps) to equate algorithms and source in a near 1-to-1 relationship. That couldn't be farther from the truth. That is the only point I was addressing, which I why I added my explanation. I have never seen two independently written alpha/beta searches that had large chunks of identical code. There are just so many ways to turn a particular algorithm into a source that expresses that algorithm. Too many ways to divide things into procedures, too many different ways to lay out data structures and what is in them. Etc.

A GPL violation would be a direct use of literal code from Fruit. As I understand it. A derivative work from Fruit, I think that is a broader specification, where Fabien states he only used commonly known algorithms. Would that not be up to some debate, when is there enough evidence a program is a derivative work from Fruit. Instead of a program making use of ideas found in Fruit. Comparing dis-assembly code, it should be possible to point to literal copies, but proving that something is a derivative work but not fair use of ideas, I think that is a bit harder.

Derivative is well-defined however. It doesn't mean "someone studies fruit then goes off and writes their own chess program, so that program is a derivative. The term comes from source-code copying. These discussions keep drifting away from the specific language of the GPL.

Just the way I understand things, just as an interested reader. Is it much more complicated than that?

Thanks,
Eelco

It is actually much simpler than that. If someone copies any part of a GPL program, then the program they use that in is also covered by the GPL.

[Dann Corbit]

This interview is an example of why I love Fabian Letouzey like I love Donald Knuth and others like them. Because I think that they are honest and want to share the truth rather than hide it.

Do not construe my devotion as license to break the law. I do not mean to insinuate that. I simply think that persons such as Knuth and Letouzey are the models to emulate and those who do not emulate them are beneath them.

IMO-YMMV {wildly}

[Dann Corbit]

Seems FSF is now the owner of Fruit code so this may be moot anyway...
http://www.top-5000.nl/int/fruit.htm

Interesting interview, but how old is it: 2 years? 5 years? 20 years?

In my experience truth is timeless and falsehood ages like fashion.
Falshood may seem nice for a while, but after a while it simply looks ridiculous.