Strelka 2.0 B running for the IPON ...

[Damir]

has right to GPL it ?? That would mean it is not GPL. Right ?

[Don]

has right to GPL it ?? That would mean it is not GPL. Right ?

I don't know what you mean. The authors always have the say about the license and they can also change the license.

[Albert Silver]

has right to GPL it ?? That would mean it is not GPL. Right ?

No, he means that since Pescatore is an author, changing is status to GPL is his right, therefore the GPL status of Robbolito is genuine.

[Milos]

In other words Ippo is not GPL but Robbolito is.

According to the ID string of the program Roberto Pescatore is one of the authors of Robbo and thus has the right to GPL it.

You are just playing dumb and since you are not, it's nothing but another manifestation of pure malice.

Roberto Pescatore has right to change the license, however:
1) Since the code has been already published as public domain, GPL would cover only new code. If you exclude Robobases and single-digit number of bugfix lines, original Robbolito (not the code you have, since that is not coming from original authors) contains literally zero new code compared to Ippolit.
2) Roberto Pecatore has never changed license (claiming that is just another lie of yours). I already pointed you at arguments about official Robolitto version, but you seams to be switched to "Rolf/bot" mode which renders aimless any meaningful conversation.

In addition, beside this ridiculous manifestation of malice against Ippo authors and supporters I have to point out one more thing since there are ppl that might take you seriously like someone with computer chess programming credibility. You (beside 1 more poor "programmer" soul) have been the rare and most vocal defender of Rybka 1 beta not derivative/clone of Fruit theory. Only that single fact speaks volumes about your agenda on this forum.

[Mike S.]

The name Roberto Pescatore is one of the Decembrists' jokes: Pescatore = Fischer (fisherman) in italian language.

[Don]

In other words Ippo is not GPL but Robbolito is.

According to the ID string of the program Roberto Pescatore is one of the authors of Robbo and thus has the right to GPL it.

You are just playing dumb and since you are not, it's nothing but another manifestation of pure malice.

Roberto Pescatore has right to change the license, however:
1) Since the code has been already published as public domain, GPL would cover only new code. If you exclude Robobases and single-digit number of bugfix lines, original Robbolito (not the code you have, since that is not coming from original authors) contains literally zero new code compared to Ippolit.
2) Roberto Pecatore has never changed license (claiming that is just another lie of yours). I already pointed you at arguments about official Robolitto version, but you seams to be switched to "Rolf/bot" mode which renders aimless any meaningful conversation.

In addition, beside this ridiculous manifestation of malice against Ippo authors and supporters I have to point out one more thing since there are ppl that might take you seriously like someone with computer chess programming credibility. You (beside 1 more poor "programmer" soul) have been the rare and most vocal defender of Rybka 1 beta not derivative/clone of Fruit theory. Only that single fact speaks volumes about your agenda on this forum.

Up until recently I felt that all attacks on Vas were unjustified. But the opinion of the Fruit author makes a difference to me and my faith in the originality of Rybka has been shaken.

I'm not sure anyone is really seeing all these developments for what they really are. When these new strong programs came out, it was obvious that they were derivatives. But to many computer chess enthusiasts, it was a time of great excitement and they became big fans of these programs. The funny thing about some computer chess enthusiasts is their fanatical loyalty to certain programs or authors (you see this with Vas worshipers for instance.) However, as is human nature, people want to feel good about their choices and sometimes we have to rationalize in order to do this. Since these programs were accused of being clones of Rybka, the solution was to discredit Rybka herself in any way possible and somehow it would make everything seem all right, it would mend their self-esteem issues the same way a country does when it decides to go to war and murder a few thousand people to make them feel superior and good about themselves.

In this case it may very well be the case that Vas strongly violated the GPL that was in Fruit and is thus illegal. But that does not make it right for others to do so. You fail to distinguish yourself as any different if you use what Vas may have done as justification for the same type of behavior.