Strelka -- Open source

[GenoM]

Let me translate it for Uri:

Thanks, it seems there was a screaming need for translation

[Alexander Schmidt]

Uri, if Strelka is Rybka´s clone, then it´s enough to have only Strelka´s code and say whether Rybka is a clone or not. Do you understand now?

If Strelka is based on Fruit, and has parts of Rybka it is a clone of Fruit and Rybka. That doesn't mean Rybka is a clone of Fruit...

Easy, isn't it?

Alex

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Uri, if Strelka is Rybka´s clone, then it´s enough to have only Strelka´s code and say whether Rybka is a clone or not. Do you understand now?

If Strelka is based on Fruit, and has parts of Rybka it is a clone of Fruit and Rybka. That doesn't mean Rybka is a clone of Fruit...

Easy, isn't it?

Alex

Hehehe,the whole matter is becoming like a big americo-french-russian salad

[Bill Rogers]

Consider the reverse engineering of several DOS clones like DR-DOS. The source code for MS-DOS was never made available. So engineers did debugging traces and wrote down an API specification. Using this API, engineers wrote another version of DOS that worked exactly the same as MS-DOS. There was nothing illegal about it.

Excuse me Dann but having been raised in Silicon Valley and being very close to a bunch of pioneers so to speak I have a little more information than what was generally released to the public.
Bill Gates disassembled CPM and then rewrote it to become MSDOS. This was very well known in the Valley at that time. In fact, in the beginning you could hardly tell the two apart in both looks and the way they operated. He was though very quick to add a bunch of features to it so that it did look and become a different operating system.

One more thing I would like to point out and that is Software Licenses. Having worked for a software company for over 15 years I have on more than occasion had to pursue some who thought they could do whatever they wanted with our software which is in fact wrong in almost every case. A "users license' gives you the right to use the software for what it was designed for and in the case of a chess program that means you can play chess against the program. It does not imply or give permission to disassemble the code to see what makes it work. That is not a users license was designed to be.
I am extremely surprised that Chrilly Donnerger has not been arrested and/or fined a very large amount for doing just that and openly admitting it. The chess program is a copyrighted program and that also means the source is protected and meant to be kept from prying eyes. Anyone who hacks and discovers what makes another program a 'winner' and then uses or published his finding is breaking international law and thus can be fined or incarcerated.
Bill

[Orlov]

Uri, if Strelka is Rybka´s clone, then it´s enough to have only Strelka´s code and say whether Rybka is a clone or not. Do you understand now?

If Strelka is based on Fruit, and has parts of Rybka it is a clone of Fruit and Rybka. That doesn't mean Rybka is a clone of Fruit...

Easy, isn't it?

Alex

That Strelka is based on code Fruit is well known and is proved. Also well known, that Strelka is very similar on Rybka 1.0. From these two conditions one can follow only - Rybka 1.0 also is based on Fruit code. It is obvious. It was necessary for author to tell about it fairly.

[Uri Blass]

Uri, if Strelka is Rybka´s clone, then it´s enough to have only Strelka´s code and say whether Rybka is a clone or not. Do you understand now?

If Strelka is based on Fruit, and has parts of Rybka it is a clone of Fruit and Rybka. That doesn't mean Rybka is a clone of Fruit...

Easy, isn't it?

Alex

That Strelka is based on code Fruit is well known and is proved. Also well known, that Strelka is very similar on Rybka 1.0. From these two conditions one can follow only - Rybka 1.0 also is based on Fruit code. It is obvious. It was necessary for author to tell about it fairly.

In other words
A: strelka is based on fruit code is not proved.
B:Rybka1.0 is very similiar to Strelka
C:Rybka1.0 is based on fruit code.

You claim that C is a conclusion of A and B.

My objections:
A is not a proved fact.
similiarity between codes does not mean that one is based on the other code and it is possible that both codes are based on the same english words that are not source code.

C is not a conclusion from A and B because it may be possible to get the same result by different methods.

If 2 people write programs that generate the prime numbers it does not mean that the code of one programs is based on the code of the other program inspite of the fact that both programs may generate the same output.

It is possible that vasik started by trying to generate similiar output to fruit without having a program that is based on fruit.

Reading fruit and understanding it and later generating code that does similiar things is clearly allowed because ideas of fruit are not protected
and only the code is protected.

Uri

[Alexander Schmidt]

That Strelka is based on code Fruit is well known and is proved.

Wrong. Even people who saw Strelkas sources didn't see it is based on Fruit. So where is the profe? It is prooven that Strelka has stolen from Rybka. Thats all.

Alex

[Orlov]

That Strelka is based on code Fruit is well known and is proved.

Wrong. Even people who saw Strelkas sources didn't see it is based on Fruit. So where is the profe? It is prooven that Strelka has stolen from Rybka. Thats all.

Alex

Even the author (Jury Osipov) with it does not argue. And you challenge this statement.

[Rolf]

It is a sad day when mediocrity feels obliged to steal from brilliance -- all of us lose.

wow
What a words
this sentence had to be written in the stone

I like his words too, like all with inspired spirits. But he didnt mention the whole situation. He mentioned the stealers but he kept silence about those who enjoy that stealing as such, as part of a fogged reality perception. I like to comment in a little series of verdicts on the general evil of the cloning business and its spectacular digestion in such a forum and elsewhere. Just to mention a lesson. If -say - in Germany two boys (Greek & Turk) slap a senior so that he falls on to the ground and if they then shoot against his head with their boots and the video appears on TV (perhaps already on Youtube, incident was in Munich?) then only unethical ghoast people could fall into laughter. Except the offender himself who called his friends by cellphone - what then led to his arest because that phone was stolen minutes ago - that he were in train to kill a German... Ok, fine, some people like this sort of humor, others feel free to condemn it as inhuman!

[Rolf]

There isn't much "legalize" in the Rybka beta 1.0 license agreement to "pull out a few words from". Here is the full text of the Rybka 1.0 "Contents & License" section of the readme:

Contents & License

In this package, you will find the Rybka 1.0 Beta chess engine (dated Dec 4, 2005), as well as the Turk opening book by Djordje Vidanovic. Both versions of these components are free and can be used and transmitted without restriction.

Hristo, I am sympathetic to your point of view and I am not in any way advocating software piracy. But I also think the simple fact is that if Vas didn't want people to decompile his code he blew it. He would have had more protection with no user agreement at all.

It would help the discussion and Rybka/Vas if many more than just Hristo would join and mark such false conclusions as totally wrong. I agree fully with Hristo that the remark means NOT that the program or the code could be decompiled and otherwise deconstructed and then reconstructed and then made public plus possibly proven that the code contains a hidden confession of some murder case that is still unsolved. What Vas allowed was that this program could be used in chess for games and puzzles and more that this program could weell be distributed among the chess fans.

We should find a level of understanding that inplicitely defines everything that could cause damage to the author of the present as illegal and or criminal. It is completely beyond me how such damages could be discussed as possibly caused by uncaucious descriptions in the licence bypack. We must judge the case from a basic ethical standpoint and not already from a possible criminal basis. Just IMO. Exuse me all, if I went too far with such comments.