Strelka and source code experts

[Daniel Mehrmann]

Well, it seems to me the burden of proof is on you, since what you claim defies logic. Show me one court decision where two things that had zero text in common were ruled to be a copy under copyright law...

I must proof something ? I must proof nothing.

That's not my task and i have no time and no desire to play your game.

Again, that's a task for the FSF. I do nothing is this case. I'm just a FSF member but nothing more. I'm just reporting things where I think there is something bad in my view. Ask the FSF to get your answer, if you don't want to do that i can't help you anyway.

Ok, that is a possible choice in general. But after your former messages such a choice is looking odd. You made claims or just let's say statements. And then if someone questions your statements he just wants to see your reasons, your justifications for what you had written. This isnt a game, because you had criticised him. This is simple logic what he asked you and you dont know what you could answer? I thought this is a forum for debates. Just typing I'll go to the FSF makes no sense if you dont want to debate your opinions and choices. Either seriously with the Law under your ellbow or just in joking like Simpson, but not by telling a collegue you wouldnt want to play his "games".

You're wrong.

1.) He doesn't understand the GPL at all
2.) His english is much better as mine
3.) in any case he just could write me dead (as you too, if you want)
4) i can't answer him as i want to answer (english)
4.) The talk is over for me anyway (it looks like he supports cloner)

Best,
Daniel

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

It's not nice to accuse a respectful programmer of supporting cloners just to win the debate....
Daniel,you are getting more and more anti-sympathy in the chess community with your actions and wrong sayings....try to be nice,soon you'll be isolated

[fern]

It is called inference, my friend, based in the observed behavior. This is typical case of a black box, so common in all kind of affairs. You just can see the external behavior and must conclude from that. In this case the problem is that:
a) same behavior can occur due to be, the compared engines, equally good- or bad- to evaluate a position.
b) same behavior can happens because both engine share some pieces of code because those code pieces are already common knowledge.
c) finally, some degree of cloning can coexists with a degree of original work.
I thin Strelka case is near this last alternative.

My best
Old good Fernando

[Daniel Mehrmann]

It's not nice to accuse a respectful programmer of supporting cloners just to win the debate....
Daniel,you are getting more and more anti-sympathy in the chess community with your actions and wrong sayings....try to be nice,soon you'll be isolated

Winning ? Losing ? I don't think in such levels.

Well, what should i think ? I asked him if I'm wrong and got no answer, instead of he wrote another posting. Do you believe i'm happy about it ? I'm not. Harm is very good programmer and has always good ideas anyway.

Best,
Daniel

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

It's not nice to accuse a respectful programmer of supporting cloners just to win the debate....
Daniel,you are getting more and more anti-sympathy in the chess community with your actions and wrong sayings....try to be nice,soon you'll be isolated

Winning ? Losing ? I don't think in such levels.

Well, what should i think ? I asked him if I'm wrong and got no answer, instead of he wrote another posting. Do you believe i'm happy about it ? I'm not. Harm is very good programmer and has always good ideas anyway.

Best,
Daniel

Believe it or not Daniel,I got so annoyed once when we had a little problem with you regarding the beta testing,remember
I honestly think that you're a nice guy with a great sense of humor,a great guy like me for example

[Tord Romstad]

I'm talking in case only if you're using sources which is already under GPL released and i'm not talking about a single function, i'm talking about a whole program. I think you misunderstood my last posting.

Daniel,

I am just as much a free software supporter as you are (if not more, after all I think chess programs should be free, unlike you), but nevertheless it seems to me that it is you who are misunderstanding Harm Geert. Harm Geert is 100% correct. Let me try to explain:

The Free Software Foundation does not, of course, have the authority to make laws, nor to change the interpretation of laws. Instead, the GNU General Public License makes use of ordinary copyright laws to protect GPLed programs. They cannot change the meaning of the word "copy", as defined by the copyright laws, to mean something different. If they did, the copyright laws would no longer apply to programs delivered under the GPL, and the license would be entirely worthless.

If the source code of program A differs so much from program B that program A cannot be described as a "copy" of program B, as defined by the copyright laws, the author of program B has no legal right to impose restrictions on what the author of program A can do with his program. This is true regardless of what license program B is provided with. Whether program B is GPLed has no relevance whatsoever.

Therefore there is no point in asking the FSF about anything, nor to study the GPL very carefully. The only relevant things are exactly how the word "copy" is defined in the copyright laws, and whether Strelka's source code is sufficiently similar to Fruit's to make it a copy according to this definition. I have not seen Strelka's source code, but based on what I have read about it, I am quite sure the copyright laws do not apply.

Based on what I know, I therefore have no reason to believe that mr. Osipov has commited a crime. Perhaps it could be said that it would be more ethical for him to release his code, since he has clearly learned so much from Fruit, but he has no legal obligation to do so.

Tord

[GenoM]

Daniel
lets clear up something:
there is NO any official statement of the author of Strelka -- did you realized that? There was just a posting under his name in KasparovChess forum.
So if I was the author if FSF call me for an answer I'll tell you something like that: My program is original work, the experts confirmed this fact, and finally I, the author of Strelka have nothing in common with a man who used my name in chess forum. So tell me now how you could prove that he broke GPL? When in this case you see any violation of GPL?
Just my 2 cents against yours...

[George Tsavdaris]

Daniel,you are getting more and more anti-sympathy in the chess community with your actions and wrong sayings....

This is not true....

Who decides who is wrong and right here? It's a complicated subject and all say their opinion. The fact that many disagree with someone's opinion does not mean anti-sympathy or whatever.....

[Uri Blass]

I'm talking in case only if you're using sources which is already under GPL released and i'm not talking about a single function, i'm talking about a whole program. I think you misunderstood my last posting.

Daniel,

I am just as much a free software supporter as you are (if not more, after all I think chess programs should be free, unlike you), but nevertheless it seems to me that it is you who are misunderstanding Harm Geert. Harm Geert is 100% correct. Let me try to explain:

The Free Software Foundation does not, of course, have the authority to make laws, nor to change the interpretation of laws. Instead, the GNU General Public License makes use of ordinary copyright laws to protect GPLed programs. They cannot change the meaning of the word "copy", as defined by the copyright laws, to mean something different. If they did, the copyright laws would no longer apply to programs delivered under the GPL, and the license would be entirely worthless.

If the source code of program A differs so much from program B that program A cannot be described as a "copy" of program B, as defined by the copyright laws, the author of program B has no legal right to impose restrictions on what the author of program A can do with his program. This is true regardless of what license program B is provided with. Whether program B is GPLed has no relevance whatsoever.

Therefore there is no point in asking the FSF about anything, nor to study the GPL very carefully. The only relevant things are exactly how the word "copy" is defined in the copyright laws, and whether Strelka's source code is sufficiently similar to Fruit's to make it a copy according to this definition. I have not seen Strelka's source code, but based on what I have read about it, I am quite sure the copyright laws do not apply.

Based on what I know, I therefore have no reason to believe that mr. Osipov has commited a crime. Perhaps it could be said that it would be more ethical for him to release his code, since he has clearly learned so much from Fruit, but he has no legal obligation to do so.

Tord

Note that strelka use almost the same evaluation and search as rybka.

Suppose somebody writes a program that gives exactly the same output as glaurung in most positions but he does not use copy and paste and he is using different data structures.

The question is if he is allowed to release the exe file without releasing the source code.

Uri

[Daniel Mehrmann]

I'm talking in case only if you're using sources which is already under GPL released and i'm not talking about a single function, i'm talking about a whole program. I think you misunderstood my last posting.

Daniel,

I am just as much a free software supporter as you are (if not more, after all I think chess programs should be free, unlike you), but nevertheless it seems to me that it is you who are misunderstanding Harm Geert. Harm Geert is 100% correct. Let me try to explain:

The Free Software Foundation does not, of course, have the authority to make laws, nor to change the interpretation of laws. Instead, the GNU General Public License makes use of ordinary copyright laws to protect GPLed programs. They cannot change the meaning of the word "copy", as defined by the copyright laws, to mean something different. If they did, the copyright laws would no longer apply to programs delivered under the GPL, and the license would be entirely worthless.

If the source code of program A differs so much from program B that program A cannot be described as a "copy" of program B, as defined by the copyright laws, the author of program B has no legal right to impose restrictions on what the author of program A can do with his program. This is true regardless of what license program B is provided with. Whether program B is GPLed has no relevance whatsoever.

Therefore there is no point in asking the FSF about anything, nor to study the GPL very carefully. The only relevant things are exactly how the word "copy" is defined in the copyright laws, and whether Strelka's source code is sufficiently similar to Fruit's to make it a copy according to this definition. I have not seen Strelka's source code, but based on what I have read about it, I am quite sure the copyright laws do not apply.

Based on what I know, I therefore have no reason to believe that mr. Osipov has commited a crime. Perhaps it could be said that it would be more ethical for him to release his code, since he has clearly learned so much from Fruit, but he has no legal obligation to do so.

Tord

Hi Tord,

you have some good point Thanks.

But i believe the problem is following one:
You're starting with a GPL program. You're taking all files and code.
Now you're starting to modify the source and finaly, and thats importent, you're rewrite 100%. At the moment where you're modify functions the new code will be automaticly GPL because, lets for example, its still to 95% a copy (you're at the beginning). Your new code is changed to GPL. You're again starting by 100%. THen you do the next modification, copy dropped to 95%, but your new code is again GPL, back to 100% GPL.
And so on. This is a endless cyle up to the point everything is rewritten. But now new rewritten code is 100% GPL...

Thats what i think will happend. But maybe i'm wrong....

Best,
Daniel