Christophe, Zach and Norman? Made a Promise- I Want It

[trojanfoe]

But make sure that you run for a court trial...

Show me why I'm wrong if I say that this is formalism, beancounting.

You are wrong because you are trying to trivialise the GPL license agreement because someone you admire has been suspected of doing it. You are so full of admiration in fact you are unwilling to listen to any suggestion of wrong doing. I don't think having so much admiration is a good thing is it?

Help me to understand the problem for you. But please in your words not quotes out of pages of GPL rules. I've seen that before when ChrisW debated with Bob.

Well the "problem" stated in my own words wouldn't sound any different to those many words already written in this forum and others. There is suspicion that code has been copied from a chess engine released under the GPL and if the source code for the derivative work isn't published then the GPL has been violated.

Just take this case and make some comments when the crucial moment existed, what exactly was the wrongdoing, perhaps in a false assumption etc.

The "wrongdoing" is as stated above.

And please do always add if you think that this what you say is the only thinkable interpretation of how things must be done. Who has organised all that in computerchess? Is CC a serious field for such questions? Or is it all a play? You see how I want to relativate certain things.

Well I don't see a problem with how things have been done. A link was made between fruit and strelka and strelka to rybka (the latter by the author himself) and therefore it followed that there was a possible link between fruit and rybka. This was investigated and links were indeed found. They were published here and those who think that the Sun shines out of the rybka author's backside took this evidence as jealousy and a witch hunt and have done everything possible to muddy the waters. You being one of the biggest in that 'camp'.

And yes, I do think CC is the correct place to discuss this issue as it's members have the most knowledge of the subject.

I havent written given away, I meant given for free as a present to those who showed interest via email, so, a totally private circle. Your turn.

given away, given for free - they are the same.

[Rolf]

Sorry but you dont answer my questions. BTW CC is computerchess for me not CCC. I ask if computerchess isnt just a playground where you just cant apply such official stuff. Just asking for explaining.

Like Kim you also belong to the logical either or camp. Which is wrong in this case IMO. You cant seriously apply such rules to a game that was the creation of a new engine on the base of ta new understanding thanks Fruit. I mean a game by creating such a email present.

Dont you laugh yourself about the nonsense as if there is such a big diffference for a smart person to just take for time reasons or to fully understand plus with new ideas. You do as if you would be talking about nitro caution.

As if, Andy, computerchess were a field where honor and full trust would have priorities... It's a game, no?

Will you please explain to me with some logic, how something where 80% of everything is common ownership could sensibly be protected as a sphere where every single original improvement should be protected with a death verdict in case it's violated???

More I asked you similar before. How do you know the commercials with their secret progs dont take everything into their own progs??? Did you examine these entities?

That is the main reason why I think also Bob's and now your doubts in case of Vasik is so strange for me. It looks as if you had an agenda to me. More I doubt that you have at least an honest position because you all left out the many commercvial progs in the past. Why? This isnt fair now to concentrate on the best ever.

Please excuse me in general that I dare to say something at all when I'm not a CC expert at all. For me it's just another science or method problem and also a moral one. It just isnt sound IMO how some of the critics argue and behave towards Vas and he seems to be superior because he doesnt participate in such debates. He can well see if he takes a glance how you argue here.

I dont insinuate envy in most of you critics at all. It's more you cant live with the fact that this guy has found something that you always had dreamed about.

But formerly you never raised your voice against other commercials who also got the titles. They were never examined. I dont say that they copy and past, but you even ask such a question to their address.

Finally:

I have already explained and other too why this Strelka incident doesnt prove what you want it to do. I know that Strelka was made to distribute that propaganda against Vas. And also here I ask you why all the efforts of talented programmers to try to prove something against Vas instead of writing some own stuff. Why? It looks so odd. And IMO it's also a very illegal activity if we take R1beta as a free but also forbidden to be ripped apart engine. But without ripping you didnt know a thing. The mere chess output is NOT the same like Fruit. Did you forget that?


So I am not a worshipper of Vasik but against impolite and odd criticism against our actually best programmer in CC.

[kiroje]

Like Kim you also belong to the logical either or camp. Which is wrong in this case IMO.

Please dont put me into a category, i just wanted to know if you thought it was alright to neglect GPL

Thanks

[Rolf]

Like Kim you also belong to the logical either or camp. Which is wrong in this case IMO.

Please dont put me into a category, i just wanted to know if you thought it was alright to neglect GPL

Thanks

But I already answered this. In case of such funny presents you cant speak of violations of anything at all. It was private. And look how the many critics are now examining the code of R1beta just to find what? That is where I see Bob in a hole. He should tell them with months retardation: hey guys stop it, end the war, I forgot that Vas just distributed this thing as a private present. Thanks Rolf, let's be friends again, you are a great mediator. Signed Bob.

[Bill Rogers]

Can anyone answer this truthfully? Vas indicated that he looked as the Fruit code when he first made Rybka 1. I don't ever remember him saying that he used that code in Rybka 2 or 3. So far no one has shown any positive proof that he did or maybe I missed it somewhere. If there has been some positive proof then lets see it once and for all.
I am not talking about the man who stated that he had disassemble Rybka showed his proof only to be confronted that he, himself renamed most of the code that he published.
I have followed the arguments about Rybka from the beggining and am still waiting for the good proofs.
Bill

[Terry McCracken]

Like Kim you also belong to the logical either or camp. Which is wrong in this case IMO.

Please dont put me into a category, i just wanted to know if you thought it was alright to neglect GPL

Thanks

But I already answered this. In case of such funny presents you cant speak of violations of anything at all. It was private. And look how the many critics are now examining the code of R1beta just to find what? That is where I see Bob in a hole. He should tell them with months retardation: hey guys stop it, end the war, I forgot that Vas just distributed this thing as a private present. Thanks Rolf, let's be friends again, you are a great mediator. Signed Bob.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 670#235670

[Edsel Apostol]

Like Kim you also belong to the logical either or camp. Which is wrong in this case IMO.

Please dont put me into a category, i just wanted to know if you thought it was alright to neglect GPL

Thanks

But I already answered this. In case of such funny presents you cant speak of violations of anything at all. It was private. And look how the many critics are now examining the code of R1beta just to find what? That is where I see Bob in a hole. He should tell them with months retardation: hey guys stop it, end the war, I forgot that Vas just distributed this thing as a private present. Thanks Rolf, let's be friends again, you are a great mediator. Signed Bob.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 670#235670

The topic or post you requested does not exist

[swami]

Like Kim you also belong to the logical either or camp. Which is wrong in this case IMO.

Please dont put me into a category, i just wanted to know if you thought it was alright to neglect GPL

Thanks

But I already answered this. In case of such funny presents you cant speak of violations of anything at all. It was private. And look how the many critics are now examining the code of R1beta just to find what? That is where I see Bob in a hole. He should tell them with months retardation: hey guys stop it, end the war, I forgot that Vas just distributed this thing as a private present. Thanks Rolf, let's be friends again, you are a great mediator. Signed Bob.

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 670#235670

The topic or post you requested does not exist

That means, It's been deleted by the CCC mods.

For me, the topic or post requested exists.

[trojanfoe]

Sounds to me Rolf that you are happy to concede that Rybka does indeed contain source code from a GPL'd engine, and you are now just arguing that the terms of the GPL don't count because of one or more of the following:

1) It was given away free.
2) It was distributed via e-mail.
3) It is the best engine.
4) Previous engines didn't have this level of discussion, WRT being copied.
5) Vas is a genius and a very nice bloke.

None of that counts Rolf, much as you'd like it to.

[trojanfoe]

Can anyone answer this truthfully? Vas indicated that he looked as the Fruit code when he first made Rybka 1. I don't ever remember him saying that he used that code in Rybka 2 or 3. So far no one has shown any positive proof that he did or maybe I missed it somewhere. If there has been some positive proof then lets see it once and for all.
I am not talking about the man who stated that he had disassemble Rybka showed his proof only to be confronted that he, himself renamed most of the code that he published.
I have followed the arguments about Rybka from the beggining and am still waiting for the good proofs.
Bill

I thought you worked in the software field Bill? How many computer products do you know that don't derive a new version from a previous version? It's how things are done and how they have always been done. It's sensible to conclude that Rybka 3 was based on Rybka 2 source code and Rybka 2 on Rybka 1 or do you not think that is how it was done?