Fabien's open letter to the community

[Chan Rasjid]

The proof is the author of Fruit himself. "Fabien's open letter to the community". And Vas statement that he claimed that Strelka 2.0 is a clone of Rybka 1.0. This linked Fruit code with Rybka code.

Read it again, then. As many times as it needed to register. He says "legally 'there is no issue". Which means no GPL violation, i.e. no copying of code.

Now I understand of course you take Fabien for an idiot, so that you can ignoe what he writes completely, and just want to use the fact that he says anything at all as a good opprtunity to shoot off your mouth aganst those that you dislike.

But I take Fabien kind of seriously. "No copying of code, but a translation of the algorithm".

So 'poof' goes your 'proof'...

I think you are misinterpreting "translation". Certainly if I translate a book from German to English and sell it as my own, I'll run afoul of copyright laws pretty quickly if the English copy sells well.

This is where most are wrong and HGM right.

The idea of 'derived work' has never been tested yet in any court (internet). Most legal/technical experts interpret 'derived work' in GPL to only include 'copy and paste'. The notions about derived work accepted in general copyright laws do not apply in GPL.

Rasjid

[Steve B]

Speaking of view totals
this thread here in the CCC has 26929 views as i write
the same exact thread was posted in another forum at about the same time and it has a paltry 931 views as i write
now that's nearly a 30:1 ratio

this of course has nothing to do with the topic of the thread but i thought a bit of healthy chest pounding and struting ones stuff was in order

The Major leagues Regards
Steve

Hello Steve,



Later.

View total ratios for the Major leagues V the Minor leagues(Single A ball) is now 31:1..as i write

50171/1610

You Cant Touch This Regards
Steve

[Laskos]

Thanks for the quick response, Kai.

I've gotten that result with Strelka 2.0 and Rybka 1.0 Beta 2 several
times. That's why I believe Beta 2 may actually be a Conkie joke; it
may actually be Strelka.

I am also using sim03.exe. Also, I am using a diverse group of engines.
I only posted the results that were relevant to my question. It is part of
a preliminary set of tests that I have been running. I hope to present my
data in the near future.

Hi Adam, I am back here for a short time.
The measure in my case is normalized Euclidian. The average linkage distance between clusters s_i and s_j is
1/Norm(s_i)/Norm(s_j) * Sum(k) Sum(l) [distance(s_ik, s_jl)].

Good luck with your tests, maybe I find time to look at Beta 2, you made me curious.

Kai

[Christopher Conkie]

The proof is the author of Fruit himself. "Fabien's open letter to the community". And Vas statement that he claimed that Strelka 2.0 is a clone of Rybka 1.0. This linked Fruit code with Rybka code.

Read it again, then. As many times as it needed to register. He says "legally 'there is no issue". Which means no GPL violation, i.e. no copying of code.

Now I understand of course you take Fabien for an idiot, so that you can ignoe what he writes completely, and just want to use the fact that he says anything at all as a good opprtunity to shoot off your mouth aganst those that you dislike.

But I take Fabien kind of seriously. "No copying of code, but a translation of the algorithm".

So 'poof' goes your 'proof'...

I think you are misinterpreting "translation". Certainly if I translate a book from German to English and sell it as my own, I'll run afoul of copyright laws pretty quickly if the English copy sells well.

This is where most are wrong and HGM right.

The idea of 'derived work' has never been tested yet in any court (internet). Most legal/technical experts interpret 'derived work' in GPL to only include 'copy and paste'. The notions about derived work accepted in general copyright laws do not apply in GPL.

Rasjid

My goodness.... You may yet restore my belief in what only ever was a hobby. That is an impressive post. It is both factual and the truth. Kudos, and I mean that.

Chris

[Chan Rasjid]

The proof is the author of Fruit himself. "Fabien's open letter to the community". And Vas statement that he claimed that Strelka 2.0 is a clone of Rybka 1.0. This linked Fruit code with Rybka code.

Read it again, then. As many times as it needed to register. He says "legally 'there is no issue". Which means no GPL violation, i.e. no copying of code.

Now I understand of course you take Fabien for an idiot, so that you can ignoe what he writes completely, and just want to use the fact that he says anything at all as a good opprtunity to shoot off your mouth aganst those that you dislike.

But I take Fabien kind of seriously. "No copying of code, but a translation of the algorithm".

So 'poof' goes your 'proof'...

I think you are misinterpreting "translation". Certainly if I translate a book from German to English and sell it as my own, I'll run afoul of copyright laws pretty quickly if the English copy sells well.

This is where most are wrong and HGM right.

The idea of 'derived work' has never been tested yet in any court (internet). Most legal/technical experts interpret 'derived work' in GPL to only include 'copy and paste'. The notions about derived work accepted in general copyright laws do not apply in GPL.

Rasjid

My goodness.... You may yet restore my belief in what only ever was a hobby. That is an impressive post. It is both factual and the truth. Kudos, and I mean that.

Chris

There is a 'common sense' reason why books and software cannot be compared. In books, the copyright is about the actual source. In software you keep the source secret (Bill Gates) and obfuscate it with a compiler and sell an 'obfuscated' product that corners the market. Stallman&Co created GPL to save us poor endusers.

Rasjid

[Ryan Benitez]

The proof is the author of Fruit himself. "Fabien's open letter to the community". And Vas statement that he claimed that Strelka 2.0 is a clone of Rybka 1.0. This linked Fruit code with Rybka code.

Read it again, then. As many times as it needed to register. He says "legally 'there is no issue". Which means no GPL violation, i.e. no copying of code.

Now I understand of course you take Fabien for an idiot, so that you can ignoe what he writes completely, and just want to use the fact that he says anything at all as a good opprtunity to shoot off your mouth aganst those that you dislike.

But I take Fabien kind of seriously. "No copying of code, but a translation of the algorithm".

So 'poof' goes your 'proof'...

I think you are misinterpreting "translation". Certainly if I translate a book from German to English and sell it as my own, I'll run afoul of copyright laws pretty quickly if the English copy sells well.

This is where most are wrong and HGM right.

The idea of 'derived work' has never been tested yet in any court (internet). Most legal/technical experts interpret 'derived work' in GPL to only include 'copy and paste'. The notions about derived work accepted in general copyright laws do not apply in GPL.

Rasjid

Computer chess is a unique community in that it has become very grey for reasons I do not understand. I feel that I am in the minority here but I would prefer the FSF clarify what is and is not legal and either shut Rybka down or clear Rybka of GPL violation accusations. I have no personal interest either way and find it unfortunate that this has become such a polarizing issue.

[Tom Barrister]

I'm going to abbreviate this as much as possible. These are all my opinions, not necessarily Gospel.

Rybka, in the current and/or some previous version. is now officially a clone of Fruit, rewritten or not, legally so or not.

Mr. Rajlich stating the he no longer has any of the earlier source codes (and implying that he knows of nobody on his team or elsewhere who has them) is a bunch of baloney, and it was probably done to try to cover his butt against possible lawsuits..

As usual, the good folks at Rybka will sweep this all under the rug.

As usual, CCRL and company will continue to allow Rybka to play and continue to ban the Ippolit series (because of payola, free copies of Rybka, Mr. Rajlich has photos of them sleeping with their sisters, whatever), thus proving that they can have it both ways, at least in their own private Idaho.

The Rybka hemorrhoid counters will continue to believe that Mr. Rajlich is the chess-programming version of Chuck Norris, and I imagine some expect a TV series in the near future, titles "Vasik: Czech Ranger", starring Mr. Rajlich, high-kicking the baddies and cleaning up Dodge.
----
Hi, xann. I haven't seen you since the IOS days and Turtle and company. Good to see you're alive and well.

[Graham Banks]

.......private Idaho.......

Well at least you have one redeeming feature. You like the B52s.

[Adam Hair]

Thanks for the quick response, Kai.

I've gotten that result with Strelka 2.0 and Rybka 1.0 Beta 2 several
times. That's why I believe Beta 2 may actually be a Conkie joke; it
may actually be Strelka.

I am also using sim03.exe. Also, I am using a diverse group of engines.
I only posted the results that were relevant to my question. It is part of
a preliminary set of tests that I have been running. I hope to present my
data in the near future.

Hi Adam, I am back here for a short time.
The measure in my case is normalized Euclidian. The average linkage distance between clusters s_i and s_j is
1/Norm(s_i)/Norm(s_j) * Sum(k) Sum(l) [distance(s_ik, s_jl)].

Good luck with your tests, maybe I find time to look at Beta 2, you made me curious.

Kai

Thanks Kai.

[Uri Blass]

I'm going to abbreviate this as much as possible. These are all my opinions, not necessarily Gospel.

Rybka, in the current and/or some previous version. is now officially a clone of Fruit, rewritten or not, legally so or not.

It is clear that you do not know what is the meaning of a clone.

Rybka is clearly not a clone of fruit even if it is a derivative of fruit.
Rybka is clearly different than fruit and suggest different moves than fruit.

I am also not convinced that programmer of rybka(or strelka assuming it was close source) broke the GPL and it is clear that there is a disagreement about this question.

Some programmers like
H.G.Muller believe that it did not break the GPL because it is rewritten
and he is not the only programmer with that opinion.

It is clearly a grey area because there is a disagreement.
It is not the same as fruit-toga when everybody that I know agree that the programmers of toga had to release the source of toga(otherwise they are quilty).