Hi Sven,Sven Schüle wrote:Norman,
on the left side you show Fruit 2.1 code. What is at the right side? "start_go" is the name of a Strelka 2.0 function. Are you showing Strelka 2.0, or one of many possible Rybka C sources after decompiling Rybka 1.0 beta and choosing a mixture of Fruit and Strelka identifiers?
Another question: since you don't have the Rybka source, how can you know about the location and order of variable declarations in Rybka? Declarations of local variables often do not produce assembler code, you just see the variables when they are used.10 // the following 4 variables are declared in Rybka, line 142 10
11 double time, inc; 11
12 double time_max, alloc; 12
I do not yet understand the process of your comparison.
Besides that, I hope everyone agrees that we are looking at code that is more of a trivial kind in the context of a chess engine. The only interesting part here is the time management code, and there I see some differences in implementation.
So to sum up, I think that we do not see a GPL violation here even if ideas were copied to some extent.
Analysis of the search of Fruit 2.1 and Rybka 1.0 beta seems to be much more interesting stuff for me.
Sven
concerning whether the code is trivial or not...several other people have also posted the same sentiment, i.e.:
if the code concerns an unimportant part of the program, like the UCI parser, etc., and doesn't effect the playing strength, no problem, it's ok.
But i just don't think that programmers, and the chess community, and the FSF can or should or will accept that explanation. Nor will they or should they (in my opinion) accept the 'coincidence/1000 monkeys in a room' argument. Personally, my views about 'scientific' progress and development are fairly liberal in this regard (as is well known) -> the so called 'standing on the shoulders of giants' metaphor, but it's not up to me (and i'm glad it's not), it's society and laws that govern.
Thanks for your input...
Norm