Strelka and source code experts

[hristo]

Reference:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?recor ... 4&page=284

"Limiting the scope of copyright protection for programs is a provision indicating that program languages, rules, and algorithms are not protected by copyright law."

Right, so the copyright laws don't seem to apply in this case.

A potential license that could have been violated is the EULA, if it prohibited disassembling (de-compilation) of the binary code. However, even in this case the act of disassembling doesn't constitute violation of the law. These type of restrictions may hold in court if the disassembled code was used to augment the original product -- for instance, bypassing a protection for some software feature that would otherwise require the licensee to pay a fee to the software author. Disassembling a software in order to 'see' how it operates is not automatically a violation of the EULA and often the resulting action is what can make this a 'crime'.

The ideas encapsulated in the software must be protected by means other than copyright and EULA if the author desires to have control over those ideas. Given the current case it doesn't seem that the ideas involved were protected (if at all) in any particularly enforceable way and probably most of those ideas are not protect-able at all, since they have been available in the public domain and free of any restrictions.

So far, it seems that there has been no violation of any law.

Regards.

[Dann Corbit]

Reference:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?recor ... 4&page=284

"Limiting the scope of copyright protection for programs is a provision indicating that program languages, rules, and algorithms are not protected by copyright law."

Right, so the copyright laws don't seem to apply in this case.

A potential license that could have been violated is the EULA, if it prohibited disassembling (de-compilation) of the binary code. However, even in this case the act of disassembling doesn't constitute violation of the law. These type of restrictions may hold in court if the disassembled code was used to augment the original product -- for instance, bypassing a protection for some software feature that would otherwise require the licensee to pay a fee to the software author. Disassembling a software in order to 'see' how it operates is not automatically a violation of the EULA and often the resulting action is what can make this a 'crime'.

The ideas encapsulated in the software must be protected by means other than copyright and EULA if the author desires to have control over those ideas. Given the current case it doesn't seem that the ideas involved were protected (if at all) in any particularly enforceable way and probably most of those ideas are not protect-able at all, since they have been available in the public domain and free of any restrictions.

So far, it seems that there has been no violation of any law.

Regards.

While there has not (as far as I can tell) been any violation of law, I would say that there have been some violations of courtesy. I think that the Strelka author's big oversight is to not give credit where credit is due.

As far as the rest of the controversy goes, I think it would be wise to wait and see what Yuri says and also what Mr. Rajlich says.

In the final analysis, what will really tell is not the legality of the matter but (rather) what the chess community thinks about the whole thing.

We tend to rush to judgement before we have gathered the facts. I think that it is better to wait for full disclosure before we start stringing up the noose.

IMO-YMMV.

[smirobth]

Sorry, but I can't see any such statement in this license. On the contrary: "Both versions of these components are free and can be used and transmitted without restriction".

Used in the form they are given does not mean disassemble or decompile.

Transmitted meaning given to others freely.

What part of "used and transmitted without restriction" do you not understand? This statement makes it 100% clear that dis-assembly and decompiling Rybka 1.0, or any other use what-so-ever, is expressly allowed. Many people have been wondering why Strelka was based on Rybka 1.0 instead of one of the more recent and stronger versions. Why would someone reverse engineer a weaker program than they could have? This completely non-restrictive license agreement may be the key to answering that question.

[Daniel Mehrmann]

Reference:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?recor ... 4&page=284

"Limiting the scope of copyright protection for programs is a provision indicating that program languages, rules, and algorithms are not protected by copyright law."

Right, so the copyright laws don't seem to apply in this case.

A potential license that could have been violated is the EULA, if it prohibited disassembling (de-compilation) of the binary code. However, even in this case the act of disassembling doesn't constitute violation of the law. These type of restrictions may hold in court if the disassembled code was used to augment the original product -- for instance, bypassing a protection for some software feature that would otherwise require the licensee to pay a fee to the software author. Disassembling a software in order to 'see' how it operates is not automatically a violation of the EULA and often the resulting action is what can make this a 'crime'.

The ideas encapsulated in the software must be protected by means other than copyright and EULA if the author desires to have control over those ideas. Given the current case it doesn't seem that the ideas involved were protected (if at all) in any particularly enforceable way and probably most of those ideas are not protect-able at all, since they have been available in the public domain and free of any restrictions.

So far, it seems that there has been no violation of any law.

Regards.

While there has not (as far as I can tell) been any violation of law, I would say that there have been some violations of courtesy. I think that the Strelka author's big oversight is to not give credit where credit is due.

As far as the rest of the controversy goes, I think it would be wise to wait and see what Yuri says and also what Mr. Rajlich says.

In the final analysis, what will really tell is not the legality of the matter but (rather) what the chess community thinks about the whole thing.

We tend to rush to judgement before we have gathered the facts. I think that it is better to wait for full disclosure before we start stringing up the noose.

IMO-YMMV.

I think we have one violation: GPL

However, besides of this it seems that all people here forget that the computerchess itself has a pretty damged image now and if it should be allowed in future to create such engines like strelka, it looks like so and i'm hoping of FSF, i see very dark times coming.

I decided for myself to keep my engine private forever now. If i see these people which supporting Strelka, e.g they say it's original work, i'm very sadly and it's a impact in my face, because i programmed a engine completly on my own without any skeleton files and code. I feel tears could running down to my face.

Best,
Daniel

[GenoM]

Hi Daniel
it happens to the all of us too
the world is not a fair place
Dont sorry about what you've done -- its a nice work
i personally like Homer and appreciate your work -- nice engine, manual and all you made very proffessionaly -- as it has to be
grats to you

[Dann Corbit]

Reference:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?recor ... 4&page=284

"Limiting the scope of copyright protection for programs is a provision indicating that program languages, rules, and algorithms are not protected by copyright law."

Right, so the copyright laws don't seem to apply in this case.

A potential license that could have been violated is the EULA, if it prohibited disassembling (de-compilation) of the binary code. However, even in this case the act of disassembling doesn't constitute violation of the law. These type of restrictions may hold in court if the disassembled code was used to augment the original product -- for instance, bypassing a protection for some software feature that would otherwise require the licensee to pay a fee to the software author. Disassembling a software in order to 'see' how it operates is not automatically a violation of the EULA and often the resulting action is what can make this a 'crime'.

The ideas encapsulated in the software must be protected by means other than copyright and EULA if the author desires to have control over those ideas. Given the current case it doesn't seem that the ideas involved were protected (if at all) in any particularly enforceable way and probably most of those ideas are not protect-able at all, since they have been available in the public domain and free of any restrictions.

So far, it seems that there has been no violation of any law.

Regards.

While there has not (as far as I can tell) been any violation of law, I would say that there have been some violations of courtesy. I think that the Strelka author's big oversight is to not give credit where credit is due.

As far as the rest of the controversy goes, I think it would be wise to wait and see what Yuri says and also what Mr. Rajlich says.

In the final analysis, what will really tell is not the legality of the matter but (rather) what the chess community thinks about the whole thing.

We tend to rush to judgement before we have gathered the facts. I think that it is better to wait for full disclosure before we start stringing up the noose.

IMO-YMMV.

I think we have one violation: GPL

However, besides of this it seems that all people here forget that the computerchess itself has a pretty damged image now and if it should be allowed in future to create such engines like strelka, it looks like so and i'm hoping of FSF, i see very dark times coming.

I decided for myself to keep my engine private forever now. If i see these people which supporting Strelka, e.g they say it's original work, i'm very sadly and it's a impact in my face, because i programmed a engine completly on my own without any skeleton files and code. I feel tears could running down to my face.

Best,
Daniel

I am not sure that GPL has been violated. The algorithms of GPL code are not protected, only the implementation.

It seems that there may be some moral issue (but not an ethical one).

I do not understand why people think it is better to invent their own algorithms rather than to learn existing ones and improve it.

For any chess programmer to pretend that all of the work belongs strictly to them is very, very strange to me. I guess that the very best chess programmers innovate about 5%, but that 5% is very telling.

If (in the long run) the purpose of the Strelka clone was to make fun of Vasik, then I will be very angry about it. But so far, I really do not know what is going on and so I will wait until the facts become clear.

[Daniel Mehrmann]

I am not sure that GPL has been violated. The algorithms of GPL code are not protected, only the implementation.

It seems that there may be some moral issue (but not an ethical one).

I do not understand why people think it is better to invent their own algorithms rather than to learn existing ones and improve it.

For any chess programmer to pretend that all of the work belongs strictly to them is very, very strange to me. I guess that the very best chess programmers innovate about 5%, but that 5% is very telling.

If (in the long run) the purpose of the Strelka clone was to make fun of Vasik, then I will be very angry about it. But so far, I really do not know what is going on and so I will wait until the facts become clear.

Oh well, of course i readed much about the common technics in computerchess and looked on example code (engines (TSCP)), but i wrote all myself from scratch.

If i understand you correctly you suggest me that i should use Fruit code for example and do a rewrite to create my own engine ?

Best,
Daniel

[Rolf]

I am not sure that GPL has been violated. The algorithms of GPL code are not protected, only the implementation.

It seems that there may be some moral issue (but not an ethical one).

I do not understand why people think it is better to invent their own algorithms rather than to learn existing ones and improve it.

For any chess programmer to pretend that all of the work belongs strictly to them is very, very strange to me. I guess that the very best chess programmers innovate about 5%, but that 5% is very telling.

If (in the long run) the purpose of the Strelka clone was to make fun of Vasik, then I will be very angry about it. But so far, I really do not know what is going on and so I will wait until the facts become clear.

Do you know of a second example where a decent programmer created his program just to demonstrate something someone else should have done and who then claimed he were still a free man?? I see no reason for such a plot. There must be forcedly a vicious motivation. So, on what facts are you speculating, hoping or waiting?

[Dann Corbit]

I am not sure that GPL has been violated. The algorithms of GPL code are not protected, only the implementation.

It seems that there may be some moral issue (but not an ethical one).

I do not understand why people think it is better to invent their own algorithms rather than to learn existing ones and improve it.

For any chess programmer to pretend that all of the work belongs strictly to them is very, very strange to me. I guess that the very best chess programmers innovate about 5%, but that 5% is very telling.

If (in the long run) the purpose of the Strelka clone was to make fun of Vasik, then I will be very angry about it. But so far, I really do not know what is going on and so I will wait until the facts become clear.

Oh well, of course i readed much about the common technics in computerchess and looked on example code (engines (TSCP)), but i wrote all myself from scratch.

If i understand you correctly you suggest me that i should use Fruit code for example and do a rewrite to create my own engine ?

Best,
Daniel

No, you do not understand me correctly.
First of all, let me complement your mammoth achievement. I imagine that given 100 programmers (who are probly less than 10% of the population) less than 10% of them can complete a working chess program.

This immediately puts you into a special category.

On the other hand, I will soundly chastize anyone who writes a chess program without:
1. Reading all the technical papers he can get his hands on
2. Carefully examining all of the existing open source implementations that are worth learning from (and certainly Fruit, Scorpio and Glaurung fall into that category along with the simpler ones that are better suited for early study).

Then, having been armed with these ideas, a great deal of thinking should be applied to the problem.

To me, there is no glory in deliberate ignorance. And I do not believe it is possible to write a better chess program strictly due to deliberate ignorance.

As far as dissassembly of commercial programs -- I don't really like it even though it is not illegal. But it is none of my business if someone else does it.

Now, let's take a step back and look at the big picture. There are many occasions when someone has taken someone else's work and (without mention) taken credit for this work as their own. In nearly all of these cases, the action is exposed and the perpetrator runs away with their tail between their legs. I think that the moral part probably escapes the secondary authors and they often completely rectify the problem (e.g Thomas Gasch went from goat to hero in my eyes).

So, I do not worry about people trying to leapfrog the effort of others and make claims that all the jump was pure spring in their own legs. If they do have nice, twitchy muscles then it will show out in the end. And if they did borrow a set of booster springs and glue them to the bottom of their shoes eventually we will see it.

I actually feel a little better now that I have written this post. It's like my mother used to say, "It will all come out in the wash."

[hristo]

I think we have one violation: GPL

Daniel,
it is not obvious where this violation occurred and by whom.

So far, taking into account all reports and Dann Corbit's involvement and experience there is no violation of the GPL.

However, besides of this it seems that all people here forget that the computerchess itself has a pretty damged image now and if it should be allowed in future to create such engines like strelka, it looks like so and i'm hoping of FSF, i see very dark times coming.

People will innovate and create new and original works and I don't see where the FSF fits into all of this.

I decided for myself to keep my engine private forever now. If i see these people which supporting Strelka, e.g they say it's original work, i'm very sadly and it's a impact in my face, because i programmed a engine completly on my own without any skeleton files and code. I feel tears could running down to my face.

Then, you have done more than most other programmers have -- great job. You cannot, reasonably, expect that all other programmers do the same as you, for clearly there are different approaches at solving the problems (chess or otherwise) and those approaches have been worked-out and developed over long period of time and it is unreasonable to expect *everyone* to avoid using this common knowledge.

Your engine is your own expression and you should be proud of it.

Regards.