On escaping copyright by rewriting everything

[tiger]

sad to say, but last i heard, most countries do copyright ideas....

for sure, in the philippines, ideas are...

And ideas are not copyrightable.anyway.

No they cannot be protected by the copyright law.

They can be protected by patents laws, maybe you are mixing copyright and patents here.



// Christophe

[tiger]

Is every idea in Chess Tiger original?

Some are and some are not.

I'm not sure why you ask about ideas, as it is clearly established that ideas are not protectable anyway.



// Christophe

[tiger]

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html

"Many people have reimplemented computer programs by rewriting them to replace the source code with code of their own writing. There is no reason to believe that this would not be a copyright infringement, particularly if the reimplementer had access to the source code of the original program, even if none of the original source code remains.

You quoted the above and concluded:

And ideas are not copyrightable.anyway.

The text reads different, thus confusing.

It has been said several times that when you type the last character of your rewrite, then your rewrite is "clean" and free from copyright.

As explained above this is not true.

In theory, because each intermediary version was protected by copyright, then your final version is also. You know it because as the "rewritter" you know exactly the process you have followed and because copyright also applies to material that has not formally been registered.

Something to ponder about: in 1996/97 I posted in RGCC how to recognize and evaluate caught bishops (a7/h7) (a2/h2). I found the exact code back in Fruit 2.1 10 years later. How so copyright?

And what about A/B, hashtables, windowing techniques, PVS, killers, LMR and and and... Is this all suddenly copyrighted because Fabien put Fruit under a GPL licence? I don't think so.

Ed

About caught bishops: I have implemented this idea in Chess Tiger after you explained it to me face to face. I think you have implemented a few ideas of mine after I explained them to you face to face or by emails. That's what we have been doing for a while, exchanging ideas, and it was good.

I don't understand why you do not understand that it is not about copying ideas but CODE. Code protected by the GPL, which precisely prevents some kind of uses like releasing the code under a proprietary license (and claiming it has your own for example).

Sorry, but it looks like you have not followed the whole discussion and you appear late with slightly off-topic points.



// Christophe

[Rolf]

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html

"Many people have reimplemented computer programs by rewriting them to replace the source code with code of their own writing. There is no reason to believe that this would not be a copyright infringement, particularly if the reimplementer had access to the source code of the original program, even if none of the original source code remains.

You quoted the above and concluded:

And ideas are not copyrightable.anyway.

The text reads different, thus confusing.

It has been said several times that when you type the last character of your rewrite, then your rewrite is "clean" and free from copyright.

As explained above this is not true.

In theory, because each intermediary version was protected by copyright, then your final version is also. You know it because as the "rewritter" you know exactly the process you have followed and because copyright also applies to material that has not formally been registered.

Something to ponder about: in 1996/97 I posted in RGCC how to recognize and evaluate caught bishops (a7/h7) (a2/h2). I found the exact code back in Fruit 2.1 10 years later. How so copyright?

And what about A/B, hashtables, windowing techniques, PVS, killers, LMR and and and... Is this all suddenly copyrighted because Fabien put Fruit under a GPL licence? I don't think so.

Ed

About caught bishops: I have implemented this idea in Chess Tiger after you explained it to me face to face. I think you have implemented a few ideas of mine after I explained them to you face to face or by emails. That's what we have been doing for a while, exchanging ideas, and it was good.

I don't understand why you do not understand that it is not about copying ideas but CODE. Code protected by the GPL, which precisely prevents some kind of uses like releasing the code under a proprietary license (and claiming it has your own for example).

Sorry, but it looks like you have not followed the whole discussion and you appear late with slightly off-topic points.

// Christophe

The reason for your misunderstandings is not that someone didnt resad everything what you wrote, but that you are unable somehow to work in arguments from people like me, Enrique, Graham and others. Bob has the same deficites.

Let me try to explain.

Like CW has written long ago, the main question is always what relevance something you mention has in legal aspects. You can use a violent speech but it's empty if it cant be legally supported.

For example if you dont even know how to relate what you say to the different law systems in the USA and Europe, this doesnt make sense at all.

All what you did was always avoiding clear and hard statements against Vas because you knew that this would bring you as a European into difficulties after EU law. But without clear speech and only reflections what you take out of such legal context about GLP you simply have no case.
But inspite of this situation you use a speech that insinuates as if you had a serious case. Ands from that comical misunderstand the whole topic lives here in CCC.

The newest trick is to insinuate that after you analysts should come to an end with your code research, that THEN you open a case aghainst Vas. But that will never happen for sure. Because you as European cant risk to lose before a EU court. Of course US citizans cant make relevant statements about legal context in Europe, or do you believe Bob could ever make a case in a European court? With his American frame of arguments?

So, IMO, what Ed states is exactly what can be stated with legal considerations. What the others all do is making wild guesses on the base of no legal rules (in Europe) - because IMO Vas still is a European himself and no American. <smile>

Hope this helps.

[Terry McCracken]

You're a legal expert too pontif??

snapcracklehsss

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

You're a legal expert too pontif??

snapcracklehsss

Hey Terry,you can't deny that having a personality like Rolf in this forum keeps it alive and kicking,despite all the issues and the consequences....
I don't intend any irony here btw....
It's just that you have to tune your psychological tunner to his and everything will be just fine

[Dann Corbit]

Is every idea in Chess Tiger original?

Some are and some are not.

I guess that every chess program on earth that is worth anything is the same.

I'm not sure why you ask about ideas, as it is clearly established that ideas are not protectable anyway.

I only wanted to establish that all chess programmers borrow ideas from other sources such as articles, books, other programs, conversations, etc.
Can we know for certain that the borrowing Vas did was not the same as ours? In other words, we all know conceptual algorithms are only protected by patent. So the question arises, how were the ideas transformed and is the new work an entity unto itself? Statements about stealing and plagiarism are judgement calls and people who are emotionally involved may make judgements that are colored by their emotions. For that reason, I am calling for restraint. Now, I do not have any problems with investigation of similarities between programs. I even have my own suspicions about certain programs, but because evidence is lacking, I will not make any charges of blame or wrongdoing.

To restate, I have no problem with this sort of thing:
"Look, these two structures are similar"
But I do have a problem with this sort of thing:
"The similarity of these structures indicates that programmer X is a liar and a cheater."

That's all.

// Christophe

[tiger]

Is every idea in Chess Tiger original?

Some are and some are not.

I guess that every chess program on earth that is worth anything is the same.

I'm not sure why you ask about ideas, as it is clearly established that ideas are not protectable anyway.

I only wanted to establish that all chess programmers borrow ideas from other sources such as articles, books, other programs, conversations, etc.
Can we know for certain that the borrowing Vas did was not the same as ours? In other words, we all know conceptual algorithms are only protected by patent. So the question arises, how were the ideas transformed and is the new work an entity unto itself? Statements about stealing and plagiarism are judgement calls and people who are emotionally involved may make judgements that are colored by their emotions. For that reason, I am calling for restraint. Now, I do not have any problems with investigation of similarities between programs. I even have my own suspicions about certain programs, but because evidence is lacking, I will not make any charges of blame or wrongdoing.

To restate, I have no problem with this sort of thing:
"Look, these two structures are similar"
But I do have a problem with this sort of thing:
"The similarity of these structures indicates that programmer X is a liar and a cheater."

That's all.

// Christophe

I'm prepared to read anything now. I'm pretty sure someone is preparing to declare the copyright laws unconstitutional. Just because they can't apply to Vas.



// Christophe

[bob]

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise27.html

"Many people have reimplemented computer programs by rewriting them to replace the source code with code of their own writing. There is no reason to believe that this would not be a copyright infringement, particularly if the reimplementer had access to the source code of the original program, even if none of the original source code remains.

You quoted the above and concluded:

And ideas are not copyrightable.anyway.

The text reads different, thus confusing.

It has been said several times that when you type the last character of your rewrite, then your rewrite is "clean" and free from copyright.

As explained above this is not true.

In theory, because each intermediary version was protected by copyright, then your final version is also. You know it because as the "rewritter" you know exactly the process you have followed and because copyright also applies to material that has not formally been registered.

Something to ponder about: in 1996/97 I posted in RGCC how to recognize and evaluate caught bishops (a7/h7) (a2/h2). I found the exact code back in Fruit 2.1 10 years later. How so copyright?

And what about A/B, hashtables, windowing techniques, PVS, killers, LMR and and and... Is this all suddenly copyrighted because Fabien put Fruit under a GPL licence? I don't think so.

Ed

That wasn't new (bishop trapped at a7/h7/a2/h2). It was in Crafty in 1995. It was in Cray Blitz many years prior to that and was discussed (and used by others) many times at ACM tournaments. Ditto for things like distant passed pawns, and other ideas as well.

In 1995 the number of commercial programs that would fall into the Bxa2, a3 trap was staggering. It almost appeared that Crafty was attempting to set a trap because it would intentionally leave a2 undefended, not thinking anyone would be so stupid as to take it and get the B trapped... Within a year, however, commercial programs were no longer falling into this.

[Terry McCracken]

You're a legal expert too pontif??

snapcracklehsss

Hey Terry,you can't deny that having a personality like Rolf in this forum keeps it alive and kicking,despite all the issues and the consequences....
I don't intend any irony here btw....
It's just that you have to tune your psychological tunner to his and everything will be just fine

Not possible, too much static.