Plagiarism and Rybka

[bob]

Because Vas gave credit to Fabian (and others -- including Christophe) Plagiarism simply cannot apply -- though other misdeeds are still possible of course. Plagiarism involved pretending to be the inventor of something. There are clearly ideas in Rybka that came from Fruit, but Vas gave credit to Fabian so plagiarism is right out.

We seem to have a different definition of "plagiarism".

OK, what is your idea of plagiarism if it is not using something and failing to give credit for it?

this is pretty good, from the wiki:

Plagiarism is the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.

Within academia, plagiarism by students, professors, or researchers is considered academic dishonesty or academic fraud and offenders are subject to academic censure. In journalism, plagiarism is considered a breach of journalistic ethics, and reporters caught plagiarizing typically face disciplinary measures ranging from suspension to termination. Some individuals caught plagiarizing in academic or journalistic contexts claim that they plagiarized unintentionally, by failing to include quotations or give the appropriate citation. While plagiarism in scholarship and journalism has a centuries-old history, the development of the Internet, where articles appear as electronic text, has made the physical act of copying the work of others much easier, simply by copying and pasting text from one web page to another.

Plagiarism is not copyright infringement. While both terms may apply to a particular act, they are different transgressions. Copyright infringement is a violation of the rights of a copyright holder, when material protected by copyright is used without consent. On the other hand, plagiarism is concerned with the unearned increment to the plagiarizing author's reputation that is achieved through false claims of authorship.

[Dann Corbit]

zach, are you refering to some new evicdence, when you say "plagerism definitely applies." The old "evidence" seems to be insufficient, at least in the minds of at least four programers on this forum and the original author of fruit. buy maybe you have uncovered something else?

It seems you have some insider info.
Can you share with us, please, if Fabien said the "old" evidence you reffered to is insufficient?

He was probably referring to Fabian's decision on Strelka. Fabain has never said anything about Rybka so far as I know. And since he has signed over the rights to FSF, I guess it is FSF who should be consulted.

But Strelka != Rybka, right? So his argument is flawed.

I agree with that.
However, I *guess* Fabian would say that there is nothing wrong with the similarity of his UCI parser and the UCI parser in Rybka 1.0.
On the other hand, the FSF could possibly take exception since they now own the copyright.
So Fabian is something of a red herring here, despite the code's origin.

Personally, I think it would be nice to have all code in the world as open source. But it seems that when innovation becomes difficult we seek out another target that is reachable.

My opinion is that:
1. It is very clear that Vas has inspiration from Fruit in Rybka 1.0 beta.
2. It is not at all clear to me that the way that Vas applied what he learned was somehow different than every other chess programmer on the planet who makes an honest attempt at innovation when incorporating new ideas that they learned from outside sources.
3. The argument has become very emotional for some and I think it may possibly cloud their judgement.
4. Vas clearly gave credit to Fruit for some of the ideas in Rybka (a model which other programmers should follow but very few do).
5. I am not an expert on legal stuff, so I could be wrong about everything.
6. I really wish the whole thing would just go away.
7. I honestly do not know if Vas has done anything wrong or not, and I think the people who say that they know that Vas is in the wrong are extruding some kind of strange clarivoyance that makes no sense to me.

[Graham Banks]

3. The argument has become very emotional for some and I think it may possibly cloud their judgement.

Yep - it's called burning one's bridges. Backing down would lose too much face, although I think that reputations have already been irreparably damaged anyway. Just my opinion.

[Zach Wegner]

2. It is not at all clear to me that the way that Vas applied what he learned was somehow different than every other chess programmer on the planet who makes an honest attempt at innovation when incorporating new ideas that they learned from outside sources.

My opinion is that it is clear.

What I'm talking about isn't necessarily new. I have seen references to some of it, but whenever it was brought up nobody seemed to make the connection.

[Zach Wegner]

...I think that reputations have already been irreparably damaged anyway.

Whose might those be? Just curious.

[Dann Corbit]

2. It is not at all clear to me that the way that Vas applied what he learned was somehow different than every other chess programmer on the planet who makes an honest attempt at innovation when incorporating new ideas that they learned from outside sources.

My opinion is that it is clear.

What I'm talking about isn't necessarily new. I have seen references to some of it, but whenever it was brought up nobody seemed to make the connection.

It is possible that you are right. But it is inconceivable to me that anyone can be sure of it.

[GenoM]

...I think that reputations have already been irreparably damaged anyway.

Whose might those be? Just curious.

Talking about a certain "reputations" that have already been "irreparable damaged" is sort of oracular. Sorry to say it, Graham, but I'm looking at these statements of yours as an attempt to manipulate public opinion.
Regards,
Geno

[Graham Banks]

...I think that reputations have already been irreparably damaged anyway.

Whose might those be? Just curious.

Talking about a certain "reputations" that have already been "irreparable damaged" is sort of oracular. Sorry to say it, Graham, but I'm looking at these statements of yours as an attempt to manipulate public opinion.
Regards,
Geno

No need for me to try and manipulate public opinion and why should anybody listen to me even if I did try? Members are capable of making up their own minds.
I just find it interesting that even though noises have been made about other top commercials before now (and not by me), Rybka has been singled out after the fact.

Cheers, Graham.

[Terry McCracken]

...I think that reputations have already been irreparably damaged anyway.

Whose might those be? Just curious.

Talking about a certain "reputations" that have already been "irreparable damaged" is sort of oracular. Sorry to say it, Graham, but I'm looking at these statements of yours as an attempt to manipulate public opinion.
Regards,
Geno

No need for me to try and manipulate public opinion and why should anybody listen to me even if I did try? Members are capable of making up their own minds.
I just find it interesting that even though noises have been made about other top commercials before now (and not by me), Rybka has been singled out after the fact.

Cheers, Graham.

Graham get a clue!

Your accusations are far more damning! Think carefully before you reply.

[slobo]

zach, are you refering to some new evicdence, when you say "plagerism definitely applies." The old "evidence" seems to be insufficient, at least in the minds of at least four programers on this forum and the original author of fruit. buy maybe you have uncovered something else?

It seems you have some insider info.
Can you share with us, please, if Fabien said the "old" evidence you reffered to is insufficient?

He was probably referring to Fabian's decision on Strelka. Fabain has never said anything about Rybka so far as I know. And since he has signed over the rights to FSF, I guess it is FSF who should be consulted.

But Strelka != Rybka, right? So his argument is flawed.

I agree with that.
However, I *guess* Fabian would say that there is nothing wrong with the similarity of his UCI parser and the UCI parser in Rybka 1.0.
On the other hand, the FSF could possibly take exception since they now own the copyright.
So Fabian is something of a red herring here, despite the code's origin.

Personally, I think it would be nice to have all code in the world as open source. But it seems that when innovation becomes difficult we seek out another target that is reachable.

My opinion is that:
1. It is very clear that Vas has inspiration from Fruit in Rybka 1.0 beta.
2. It is not at all clear to me that the way that Vas applied what he learned was somehow different than every other chess programmer on the planet who makes an honest attempt at innovation when incorporating new ideas that they learned from outside sources.

4. Vas clearly gave credit to Fruit for some of the ideas in Rybka (a model which other programmers should follow but very few do).
5. I am not an expert on legal stuff, so I could be wrong about everything.

7. I honestly do not know if Vas has done anything wrong or not, and I think the people who say that they know that Vas is in the wrong are extruding some kind of strange clarivoyance that makes no sense to me.

I know: he did something wrong.
Not from a moral viewpoint (I mean he may not be found guilty in a tribunal). He did it from the ethical viewpoint.

2. It is not at all clear to me that the way that Vas applied what he learned was somehow different than every other chess programmer on the planet who makes an honest attempt at innovation when incorporating new ideas that they learned from outside sources.

Well, then you think that original attempts of Thomas Gaksch and Norman Schmidt had been honest attempts. I cannot agree with on that. My conviction is that now their attempts are honest, but in the beginning they had not been.

4. Vas clearly gave credit to Fruit for some of the ideas in Rybka (a model which other programmers should follow but very few do).

Do you really think he gave credit to Fruit´s author? I don´t think so.
Let me explain my point:
Let´s suppose that Daniel Shawul, Scorpio´s (open source engine´s) author, give his written credit to Fruit´s author, Fabien Letouzey.

They both use the "same language": "open source code language", and a simple written credit is enough to settle things.

On the other hand, when a commercial engine´s author (engine with closed source code) try to do the same: to settle things with an open source engine author by a simple written credit, it is not correct anymore. Why? Because they do not speak the same language.

A commercial engine´s author speaks a "money language", which is not the same as "open source code language".

Conclusion: if a commercial engine´s author really wants to give credits to an open source code author, he should give written credits and "money credits" in a form of royalties - authorial rights.

When a commercial engine´s author gives only written credits to an open source code author, it is a mockery.


5. I am not an expert on legal stuff, so I could be wrong about everything.

No need to be "an expert on legal stuff". Enough to know what you would not like that others do to yourself.