ethical dilemma

[Rolf]

The point is that it's impossible to take the two opponents with equal rights. Vas is very real and known but the figure O is not, Graham. Follow the SDchess site and go after the interview with O. That is a fake name as he himself admits. So he attacks Vas out of the hidden and you still defend members who have a reluctant view on the case? Read that interview and you will think different. IMO

When it comes to moderation, Ryan, Albert and myself must put our own beliefs on issues aside and keep order in the forum using the charter as our guide.

Regards, Graham.

I fully respect your dilemma and wont make it more difficult than it's already without me.

[hristo]

Has Vas patented his new ideas? If not, there will never be a law suit because there is no infringement. Reverse-engineering infringement suits depend on the pre-existing patent to form the basis for the infringement. There is clearly no copyright issue if actual original code is not copied. In fact, US patent/copyright laws are very clear in what can be copyrighted and what has to be patented...

I don't believe that you are correct in the above.
Literal and non-literal copies (with respect to original source code or binary output) are both subject to copyright violations. If there is disassembled code found in the Strelka (1.x - 2.x) that can be shown to have been taken from Rybka executable then the copyright infringement is a very likely outcome.

It is not legal to disassemble a program and then assemble it again and claim copyright on the result and avoid the copyrights associated with the original -- even if you have never seen the code that produced the original binary.

It is illegal (in vast majority of the cases) to integrate machine executable code into your own application, without being given the explicit permission to do so.

Anyway,
copyright issues are often more complex than what we believe them to be.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/WebTable.htm

Among a copyright owner's exclusive rights is the right “to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.” 17 U.S.C. § 106(2). If, as we hold, the speeded-up Galaxian game that a licensee creates with a circuit board supplied by the defendant is a derivative work based upon Galaxian, a licensee who lacks the plaintiff's authorization to create a derivative work is a direct infringer and the defendant is a contributory infringer through its sale of the speeded-up circuit board.

Section 101 of the 1976 Copyright Act defines a derivative work as “a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.”

... source code is not necessary to have a copyright infringement.

Regards,
Hristo

There is a special case for algorithms. They must have patent protection.
I have seen a tool used by a large corporation used to check for copyright violation. It basically did a diff on the two versions of source code and if less than a certain large percentage of the code was *identical* it said that there was no case.

Dann,
this is just one (of many) way to detect copyright infringements and is very useful when you have code against which to compare.

Of course, I am not a lawyer, and I could always be wrong about it. On the other hand, if simply using the same idea (read 'algorithm') in a chess program is copyright infringement, then every chess program in the world is infringing. Is there a chess program that does not use some form of alpha-beta or mtd(f)? If not, then they are using the same algorithm as written originally by someone else.

Dann,
the point is that source code availability is not prerequisite for copyright infringement(s).

Ideas are not the topic at hand -- at least not for me. However, reverse engineering and the consequent actions is important.

Be that as it may, if somehow the court ruled that the fundamental ideas from Rybka used by another program constituted copyright infringement,

This is not the issue Dann.

I think it would be the single worst blow that I can possibly imagine for software development. From that moment forward, only the really huge corporations could develop software. It would mean (really) that copyright and patent now were identical in software development and you do not even have to apply for it.

I agree with you that if the above happened it would be the end of independent software developers. But it will not, simply because this is not the issue at hand -- reverse engineering, integrating disassembled code, illegal distribution are the issues.

Here is my opinion, stated more eloquently than I could ever do it:
http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/knuth-to-pto.txt
See also:
http://eupat.ffii.org/gasnu/knuth/index.en.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_patent_debate
http://www.bellevuelinux.org/software_piracy.html

And from http://www.jenkins.eu/articles/reverse-engineering.asp
we have this:

"COMPUTER PROGRAMS
In the case of computer programs, the EU directive states (11) that the ideas and principles underlying a program are not protected by copyright, and that (12) logic, algorithms and programming languages may to some extent comprise ideas and principles.

Analysis of the function of a program (but not decompilation (13))is permitted under Article 5.3, if it is carried out by a licensed user in the normal use of the program.

Reverse engineering is allowed under Article 6, but only for the single purpose of producing an interoperable program (rather than a competing program).

For this purpose, in addition to reverse engineering itself (i.e. producing a high level version of the code) subsequent forward engineering to produce the interoperable program is permitted.

However, the reverse engineer has to cross a host of formidable barriers before he can make use of this right;

It must be indispensable to reverse engineer to obtain the necessary information.
The reverse engineering has to be by a licensee or authorised user.
The necessary information must not already have been readily available to those people.

Only the parts of the program necessary for interoperability (i.e. the interfaces) can be reproduced.

The information generated by the reverse engineering cannot be used for anything other than achieving interoperability of an independently created program.
The information cannot be passed on to others except where necessary for this purpose.
The information obtained cannot be used to make a competing program (rather than just an interoperable one).
The "legitimate interests" of the copyright owner or "normal exploitation" of the program must not be prejudice.
Thus, far from creating a general right to reverse engineer, these provisions create only the smallest of openings for the reverse engineer; they are intended for use only to defeat locked, confidential, proprietary interfaces."

P.S.
In the US (at least) you do not have to explicitly claim copyright in the source code. The only way for code to become public domain is to explicitly say so.

Indeed.
In light of all of this and given that there was no explicit surrender of copyrights with respect to Rybka ... the reverse engineering of the Rybka binary code is very likely illegal, especially considering the consequent actions.

Regards,
Hristo

[bob]

Has Vas patented his new ideas? If not, there will never be a law suit because there is no infringement. Reverse-engineering infringement suits depend on the pre-existing patent to form the basis for the infringement. There is clearly no copyright issue if actual original code is not copied. In fact, US patent/copyright laws are very clear in what can be copyrighted and what has to be patented...

I don't believe that you are correct in the above.

I am certain that I am. I have to deal with copyright attorney stuff on a regular basis...[/quote]

Until one stops to determine if there is any borrowed code in Rybka. Which was claimed by Vas to have come from fruit.

Literal and non-literal copies (with respect to original source code or binary output) are both subject to copyright violations. If there is disassembled code found in the Strelka (1.x - 2.x) that can be shown to have been taken from Rybka executable then the copyright infringement is a very likely outcome.

The courts have been _very_ precise in their dealing with software patent infringement. It is the "idea" that gets patented. For copyright, it is the actual text (or in this case program source code). reverse-engineering cases have _always_ revolved around patents, not copyright. There's no hope of pursuing a copyright infringement if you can't detail exactly what was copied.

It is not legal to disassemble a program and then assemble it again and claim copyright on the result and avoid the copyrights associated with the original -- even if you have never seen the code that produced the original binary.

It depends on what he actually did. It is certainly not illegal to disassemble a program. There's no law regarding that period. Taking the assembly language result and calling it your own is a very grey area that would cost a fortune to litigate, and likely would ultimately if he could show that he modified it extensively. Just as the program he copied had its roots elsewhere...

It is illegal (in vast majority of the cases) to integrate machine executable code into your own application, without being given the explicit permission to do so.

That is a pure copyright issue. As you are copying a program in its entirety, what we are talking about is something far different.

Anyway,
copyright issues are often more complex than what we believe them to be.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/WebTable.htm

Among a copyright owner's exclusive rights is the right “to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.” 17 U.S.C. § 106(2). If, as we hold, the speeded-up Galaxian game that a licensee creates with a circuit board supplied by the defendant is a derivative work based upon Galaxian, a licensee who lacks the plaintiff's authorization to create a derivative work is a direct infringer and the defendant is a contributory infringer through its sale of the speeded-up circuit board.

Section 101 of the 1976 Copyright Act defines a derivative work as “a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.”

... source code is not necessary to have a copyright infringement.

Regards,
Hristo

I agree. But it is impossible to claim someone derived something from your work, if they can prove you derived yours from something else pre-existing. Now your copyright or patent is invalid...

As I said, expensive with no likely success...

[hristo]

Has Vas patented his new ideas? If not, there will never be a law suit because there is no infringement. Reverse-engineering infringement suits depend on the pre-existing patent to form the basis for the infringement. There is clearly no copyright issue if actual original code is not copied. In fact, US patent/copyright laws are very clear in what can be copyrighted and what has to be patented...

I don't believe that you are correct in the above.

I am certain that I am. I have to deal with copyright attorney stuff on a regular basis...

I deal with IP attorneys frequently and have been involved in IP cases. I would like to know if your attorneys claim that the presence of source code is a mandatory requirement for copyright infringement. My attorneys have never said such thing and in fact I was asked to render an opinion on disassembled code without ever seeing the original source code. It is possible that your attorneys are better than mine and so I would love to know of a verdict (after all attorneys are bound by the judgments) that states that "source code similarity is the only way to assert copyright infringement in a software case".
The link I provided includes a number of cases where copyright infringement was asserted (and granted) without having anything to do with the original source code.

Until one stops to determine if there is any borrowed code in Rybka. Which was claimed by Vas to have come from fruit.

Robert,
the law doesn't work that way, at least not from what I have been exposed to. We cannot indemnify one illegal action by suggesting that there was something "illegal" beforehand.

Strelka is legal or illegal regardless of how Rybka was created.
(putative example: "I killed him because I think he killed someone else" is not a good or acceptable defense -- you are going to get the chair.)

Literal and non-literal copies (with respect to original source code or binary output) are both subject to copyright violations. If there is disassembled code found in the Strelka (1.x - 2.x) that can be shown to have been taken from Rybka executable then the copyright infringement is a very likely outcome.

The courts have been _very_ precise in their dealing with software patent infringement. It is the "idea" that gets patented. For copyright, it is the actual text (or in this case program source code). reverse-engineering cases have _always_ revolved around patents, not copyright. There's no hope of pursuing a copyright infringement if you can't detail exactly what was copied.

But you can ... the disassembled code.

Robert,
the "idea vs expression" is a non-sequitur in this case. No one is seeking protection of the idea, instead we are talking about how the 'idea' was obtained.

It is not legal to disassemble a program and then assemble it again and claim copyright on the result and avoid the copyrights associated with the original -- even if you have never seen the code that produced the original binary.

It depends on what he actually did. It is certainly not illegal to disassemble a program. There's no law regarding that period. Taking the assembly language result and calling it your own is a very grey area that would cost a fortune to litigate, and likely would ultimately if he could show that he modified it extensively. Just as the program he copied had its roots elsewhere...

I don't believe that it would cost a fortune if it can be shown that he disassembled the program with the intent to obtain the idea contained therein. (just my opinion)

You keep repeating that "the original software" [Rybka] had its roots somewhere else ... but that is completely irrelevant to the act of stealing the ideas that are unique to Rybka.

It is illegal (in vast majority of the cases) to integrate machine executable code into your own application, without being given the explicit permission to do so.

That is a pure copyright issue. As you are copying a program in its entirety, what we are talking about is something far different.

If you read the link [paper] that I linked to, you will see that this is not the case, i.e. the program was not copied in its entirety.

Anyway,
copyright issues are often more complex than what we believe them to be.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/WebTable.htm

Among a copyright owner's exclusive rights is the right “to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.” 17 U.S.C. § 106(2). If, as we hold, the speeded-up Galaxian game that a licensee creates with a circuit board supplied by the defendant is a derivative work based upon Galaxian, a licensee who lacks the plaintiff's authorization to create a derivative work is a direct infringer and the defendant is a contributory infringer through its sale of the speeded-up circuit board.

Section 101 of the 1976 Copyright Act defines a derivative work as “a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.”

... source code is not necessary to have a copyright infringement.

Regards,
Hristo

I agree. But it is impossible to claim someone derived something from your work, if they can prove you derived yours from something else pre-existing. Now your copyright or patent is invalid...

As I said, expensive with no likely success...

If there is evidence of disassembled code [from Rybka] in Strelka the chance for success is 99% ... but it will be expensive (not quite a fortune, though ).

Regards,
Hristo

[Rolf]

Has Vas patented his new ideas? If not, there will never be a law suit because there is no infringement. Reverse-engineering infringement suits depend on the pre-existing patent to form the basis for the infringement. There is clearly no copyright issue if actual original code is not copied. In fact, US patent/copyright laws are very clear in what can be copyrighted and what has to be patented...

I don't believe that you are correct in the above.

I am certain that I am. I have to deal with copyright attorney stuff on a regular basis...

Until one stops to determine if there is any borrowed code in Rybka. Which was claimed by Vas to have come from fruit.

Literal and non-literal copies (with respect to original source code or binary output) are both subject to copyright violations. If there is disassembled code found in the Strelka (1.x - 2.x) that can be shown to have been taken from Rybka executable then the copyright infringement is a very likely outcome.

The courts have been _very_ precise in their dealing with software patent infringement. It is the "idea" that gets patented. For copyright, it is the actual text (or in this case program source code). reverse-engineering cases have _always_ revolved around patents, not copyright. There's no hope of pursuing a copyright infringement if you can't detail exactly what was copied.

It is not legal to disassemble a program and then assemble it again and claim copyright on the result and avoid the copyrights associated with the original -- even if you have never seen the code that produced the original binary.

It depends on what he actually did. It is certainly not illegal to disassemble a program. There's no law regarding that period. Taking the assembly language result and calling it your own is a very grey area that would cost a fortune to litigate, and likely would ultimately if he could show that he modified it extensively. Just as the program he copied had its roots elsewhere...

It is illegal (in vast majority of the cases) to integrate machine executable code into your own application, without being given the explicit permission to do so.

That is a pure copyright issue. As you are copying a program in its entirety, what we are talking about is something far different.

Anyway,
copyright issues are often more complex than what we believe them to be.

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/claw/WebTable.htm

Among a copyright owner's exclusive rights is the right “to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.” 17 U.S.C. § 106(2). If, as we hold, the speeded-up Galaxian game that a licensee creates with a circuit board supplied by the defendant is a derivative work based upon Galaxian, a licensee who lacks the plaintiff's authorization to create a derivative work is a direct infringer and the defendant is a contributory infringer through its sale of the speeded-up circuit board.

Section 101 of the 1976 Copyright Act defines a derivative work as “a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.”

... source code is not necessary to have a copyright infringement.

Regards,
Hristo

I agree. But it is impossible to claim someone derived something from your work, if they can prove you derived yours from something else pre-existing. Now your copyright or patent is invalid...

As I said, expensive with no likely success...

You are talking about the USA, right? What if Vas is living in Europe? The EU?

[Terry McCracken]

Go read what Vas said, it's in the Hiarcs Forum, General Forum Main Lobby, reposted by Harvey Williamson.

Statements by Rajlich will not become evidence however frequently you repeat them.
Only evidence is code comparison as far as cloning means copy and paste. As Rajlich is never going to release Rybka code, there is never going to be evidence.

I think the best thing is to let the matter rest, and let everyone maintain his opinion about Strelka, the more so as no one is going to persuade anyone to change his mind.

Well we all know Vas isn't lying, and those who choose to ignore reality are kidding themselves.

Terry

[Graham Banks]

Well we all know Vas isn't lying, and those who choose to ignore reality are kidding themselves.

Terry

Everybody is entitled to their opinion Terry. We're only going around in circles on this.

[Terry McCracken]

Well we all know Vas isn't lying, and those who choose to ignore reality are kidding themselves.

Terry

Everybody is entitled to their opinion Terry. We're only going around in circles on this.

Not when the facts say otherwise.

Vas is being defamed.

[GenoM]

Till now still noone of Rybka fans can not give an answer in case that Strelka was a Rybka clone:
1.Why Osipov gave such a suspicious name of his first engine? If he wanted to hide his engine origins, he could name it Youri Chess 0.01 or some.
2.Why he didn't went commercial? His sources would have been closed and noone could demanded them.
3.Why he published sources of his engine if it was a clone? Why he shared this source to other engine authors?
4.And finally -- why he decompiled weaker version of Rybka to make his engine? Why not final one?
Please, share your answers.

[Rolf]

Till now still noone of Rybka fans can not give an answer in case that Strelka was a Rybka clone:
1.Why Osipov gave such a suspicious name of his first engine? If he wanted to hide his engine origins, he could name it Youri Chess 0.01 or some.
2.Why he didn't went commercial? His sources would have been closed and noone could demanded them.
3.Why he published sources of his engine if it was a clone? Why he shared this source to other engine authors?
4.And finally -- why he decompiled weaker version of Rybka to make his engine? Why not final one?
Please, share your answers.

I like these questions but had no motivation to publish them, but I had them all like you. Well, the absolutely crazy conclusion could be my dear correspondent thqat the famous O is no ther than Vas himself. That would be funny, no? I like you out of similarity in mind.