swami wrote:bob wrote:Rolf wrote:
Bob, was it a fabrication of a clone from Norm Schmidt, one of your honest testers or not?
Yes. So? "Let ye who have not sinned cast the first stone." comes to mind. He made a mistake, and everyone has moved on. He's neither the first, nor will he be the last. In fact, it is quite common in the US for the FBI to actually hire "hackers" and "thieves" to help catch others that have not yet been caught. In that light, it makes even more sense for him to be involved.
Quite true. Reminds me of the Spielberg film "Catch me If you can"
Rolf,
Personally, I would certainly prefer any of the phrases: 'derivative', 'partial derivative', 'semi-copy', 'copyright infringing program', etc. used in lieu of the dirty 'c' word.
In response to the "Catch Me if you Can' film analogy above: at least concerning theft, the legal system has accurate terms: misdemeanor, felony, grand theft, counterfeitor, etc.
Unfortunately, as far as the definition of a 'clone', or a 'derivative', or 'partial derivative', or 'illegal copy', there's no standard. Quite sadly, there are no definitions, no guidelines, and no gray area. it's black and white, and left up to court of public opinion.
isn't a clone an identical copy? like Dolly the sheep? haven't we been using terms like 'derivative' and possible 'GPL infringement' in our discussions about Rybka 1.0 vs. Fruit 2.1?
if Stelka is known to be a clone of Rybka, (stated as such in Wikipedia, and confirmed by Vas himself), and Strelka is known to have so much Fruit code in it..., isn't it fair, correct, and logical to question the legitimacy of both programs??
But, here we have Strelka 2.0 source code...clearly and brazenly containing hundreds of lines of source code directly from Fruit, yet Strelka is still being tested and distributed? and apparently has been accepted by the chess community?
Begin Wikipedia reprint:
Strelka controversy
In May 2007, a new chess engine called Strelka appeared on the scene, claimed to be written by Yuri Osipov. Soon, there were allegations that Strelka was a clone of Rybka 1.0 beta, in the sense that it was a reverse-engineered and slightly modified version of Rybka.[33] Several players found Strelka to yield identical analysis to Rybka in a variety of different situations, even having the same bugs and weaknesses in some cases. Osipov, however, stated repeatedly on discussion boards that Strelka was based on Fruit, not Rybka, and that any similarities was either because Rybka also was based on Fruit, or because he had tuned the evaluation function to be as close to Rybka as possible.[34][35]
With the release of Strelka 2.0 beta, source code was included. Rajlich stated that the source made it "obvious" that Strelka 2.0 beta was indeed a Rybka 1.0 beta clone, although not without some improvements in certain areas. On basis of this, he claimed the source as his own and intended to re-release it under his own name[36], although this has not happened yet. He also made allegations that "Yuri Osipov" was a pen name. Osipov again denied the allegations of cloning, but as of 2008, there is generally consensus that Strelka is indeed a Rybka clone.
End Wikipedia reprint
Concerning Rybka 1.0 beta: the message i clearly get is: no big deal, we don't care, what has been disasembled is only UCI parser stuff, non-critical engine AI code, etc. and besides, Vas is beloved, and has stated it is clean.
I can accept the chess communities decisions, and will move on. I'm just trying to make sense of it all, to obtain some closure, but with great difficulty, because of the double (or triple) standard being applied.
Norm
