If your text below is not actually a call for the banning of Rybka/Vas for life, would you possibly like to make a statement that is not your intention to call into question any problem with Rybka version in Beijing, no reason to believe there is a problem with that version and no justification either to inspect its source code nor to call for a ban on the program/programmer?
Further that you disapprove of any back-dated attack on the status of any Rybka version entered into a past tournament and using that to forward ban the program/programmer in the future?
Chris
Hyatt wrote:
The GPL is specific, once you start with GPL code, your code is GPL until _every last line_ has been rewritten so that not one single line of GPL code remains. It is not much of a stretch to believe that R2 has much of the same source as R1. And that R3 has much of the same source as R2. So _if_ R1 is a partial or complete copy of fruit, R1 is automatically GPL code. And unless R2 was 100% rewritten, R2 would also be GPL. Ditto for R3.
Enrique wrote:
Guesswork. Many "would", "if", "unless", "believe" in your writing above. Tournament organizers cannot base any decisions on guesswork, educated or not. Reverse engineer R3 and prove that GPL code from the non commercial R1 beta still exists in Rybka 3. The rest is mere assumption, and one doesn't accuse based on assumptions.
Enrique
Hyatt replied:
The case against R1 looks pretty convincing based on duplicate code that has actually been published with no ifs, ands or buts or "thinks" associated. That looks to be bad, IMHO. I suppose someone will, sooner or later, apply the same reverse-engineering to R2 and R3, to see what they find out.
However, the assumptions being discussed here are very solidly founded in software engineering practices. As far as tournaments go, my policy would be quite simple there. If someone clones a program and enters it as their own work, and then it is proven that the code was a copy/clone of another program, then they are banned from competition for life. If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned...
Before everybody starts jumping ahead like this, I think that Vasik has the right to respond to any formal questions raised by his colleagues.
That is what he asked for and what he should get. At some point I think it is necessary not to use a public forum as a court-room in anticipation of any formal complaints. But that is up to the moderators. And to the parties in question. Vasik has not yet had any opportunity to respond to any formal complaints in the way that he deserves to be able to. Any discussion about what happens after this, at some point that just becomes a witchhunt in my opinion.
Thanks very much moderators for trying to steer this whole matter into more civil weaters, and for defending the rights of all parties involved. Some on the other side have not spoken out and I think it is only just that you as moderators argue that they have rights too. Thank you very much.
Thanks Chris.
Eelco
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first
place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you
are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
-- Brian W. Kernighan
GenoM wrote:I appreciated your point, Eelco, but so far neither Christophe, neither Zach or Norman, or Robert Hyatt can be blamed of witchhunting.
Regards,
Geno
Hi Evgenii,
I appreciate your point, I agree with it, it is just that if discussions seem to drag on without anybody really able to say what are actually are the grounds for this discussion, because these still have to be made up, I think that would be enough even for any legal case or even just an ICGA case to be nulled, thrown out of "court", before it ever came to that. What is Vas going to respond to? He can't respond to anything yet. Is that fair? I don't think that would be fair.
That is just what I wanted to say.
Have a good weekend Evgenii!
Eelco
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first
place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you
are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
-- Brian W. Kernighan
GenoM wrote:I appreciated your point, Eelco, but so far neither Christophe, neither Zach or Norman, or Robert Hyatt can be blamed of witchhunting.
Regards,
Geno
Hi Evgenii,
I appreciate your point, I agree with it, it is just that if discussions seem to drag on without anybody really able to say what are actually are the grounds for this discussion, because these still have to be made up, I think that would be enough even for any legal case or even just an ICGA case to be nulled, thrown out of "court", before it ever came to that. What is Vas going to respond to? He can't respond to anything yet. Is that fair? I don't think that would be fair.
That is just what I wanted to say.
Have a good weekend Evgenii!
Eelco
Seems one(Bob) if not all those named above (by Evgenii ) have already made up their minds about Rybka/VAS, if my reading comprehension is up to snuff.
Quote:
Hyatt replied:
The case against R1 looks pretty convincing based on duplicate code that has actually been published with no ifs, ands or buts or "thinks" associated. That looks to be bad, IMHO. I suppose someone will, sooner or later, apply the same reverse-engineering to R2 and R3, to see what they find out.
DUPLICATE CODES-NO IFS-ANDS OR BUTS.I reiterate, it seems they've made up their minds already.
If your text below is not actually a call for the banning of Rybka/Vas for life, would you possibly like to make a statement that is not your intention to call into question any problem with Rybka version in Beijing, no reason to believe there is a problem with that version and no justification either to inspect its source code nor to call for a ban on the program/programmer?
If Rybka is a copy of fruit, yes it should be banned permanently. It has not been proven yet. The evidence is certainly alarming, IMHO, but this takes time. However, personally, I have little use for those that would outright copy another program and then claim "I didn't copy anything." What is so outrageous about that position???
Further that you disapprove of any back-dated attack on the status of any Rybka version entered into a past tournament and using that to forward ban the program/programmer in the future?
Chris
I don't even know what that means...
Hyatt wrote:
The GPL is specific, once you start with GPL code, your code is GPL until _every last line_ has been rewritten so that not one single line of GPL code remains. It is not much of a stretch to believe that R2 has much of the same source as R1. And that R3 has much of the same source as R2. So _if_ R1 is a partial or complete copy of fruit, R1 is automatically GPL code. And unless R2 was 100% rewritten, R2 would also be GPL. Ditto for R3.
Enrique wrote:
Guesswork. Many "would", "if", "unless", "believe" in your writing above. Tournament organizers cannot base any decisions on guesswork, educated or not. Reverse engineer R3 and prove that GPL code from the non commercial R1 beta still exists in Rybka 3. The rest is mere assumption, and one doesn't accuse based on assumptions.
Enrique
Hyatt replied:
The case against R1 looks pretty convincing based on duplicate code that has actually been published with no ifs, ands or buts or "thinks" associated. That looks to be bad, IMHO. I suppose someone will, sooner or later, apply the same reverse-engineering to R2 and R3, to see what they find out.
However, the assumptions being discussed here are very solidly founded in software engineering practices. As far as tournaments go, my policy would be quite simple there. If someone clones a program and enters it as their own work, and then it is proven that the code was a copy/clone of another program, then they are banned from competition for life. If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned...
If your text below is not actually a call for the banning of Rybka/Vas for life, would you possibly like to make a statement that is not your intention to call into question any problem with Rybka version in Beijing, no reason to believe there is a problem with that version and no justification either to inspect its source code nor to call for a ban on the program/programmer?
If Rybka is a copy of fruit, yes it should be banned permanently. It has not been proven yet. The evidence is certainly alarming, IMHO, but this takes time. However, personally, I have little use for those that would outright copy another program and then claim "I didn't copy anything." What is so outrageous about that position???
Further that you disapprove of any back-dated attack on the status of any Rybka version entered into a past tournament and using that to forward ban the program/programmer in the future?
Chris
I don't even know what that means...
Hyatt wrote:
The GPL is specific, once you start with GPL code, your code is GPL until _every last line_ has been rewritten so that not one single line of GPL code remains. It is not much of a stretch to believe that R2 has much of the same source as R1. And that R3 has much of the same source as R2. So _if_ R1 is a partial or complete copy of fruit, R1 is automatically GPL code. And unless R2 was 100% rewritten, R2 would also be GPL. Ditto for R3.
Enrique wrote:
Guesswork. Many "would", "if", "unless", "believe" in your writing above. Tournament organizers cannot base any decisions on guesswork, educated or not. Reverse engineer R3 and prove that GPL code from the non commercial R1 beta still exists in Rybka 3. The rest is mere assumption, and one doesn't accuse based on assumptions.
Enrique
Hyatt replied:
The case against R1 looks pretty convincing based on duplicate code that has actually been published with no ifs, ands or buts or "thinks" associated. That looks to be bad, IMHO. I suppose someone will, sooner or later, apply the same reverse-engineering to R2 and R3, to see what they find out.
However, the assumptions being discussed here are very solidly founded in software engineering practices. As far as tournaments go, my policy would be quite simple there. If someone clones a program and enters it as their own work, and then it is proven that the code was a copy/clone of another program, then they are banned from competition for life. If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned...
Further that you disapprove of any back-dated attack on the status of any Rybka version entered into a past tournament and using that to forward ban the program/programmer in the future?
Chris
It means quite simply, as per your comment
Bob wrote:
If someone clones a program and enters it as their own work, and then it is proven that the code was a copy/clone of another program, then they are banned from competition for life. If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned...
Do you disapprove of an attempt to try to use "the case against R1" as a means to discredit the program/programmer and get him banned for life and being unable to compete using R2/R3
The words "If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned... " suggest so. If you can prove R1, you want Rybka banned. That's my reading of what you wrote.
If your text below is not actually a call for the banning of Rybka/Vas for life, would you possibly like to make a statement that is not your intention to call into question any problem with Rybka version in Beijing, no reason to believe there is a problem with that version and no justification either to inspect its source code nor to call for a ban on the program/programmer?
If Rybka is a copy of fruit, yes it should be banned permanently. It has not been proven yet. The evidence is certainly alarming, IMHO, but this takes time. However, personally, I have little use for those that would outright copy another program and then claim "I didn't copy anything." What is so outrageous about that position???
Further that you disapprove of any back-dated attack on the status of any Rybka version entered into a past tournament and using that to forward ban the program/programmer in the future?
Chris
I don't even know what that means...
Hyatt wrote:
The GPL is specific, once you start with GPL code, your code is GPL until _every last line_ has been rewritten so that not one single line of GPL code remains. It is not much of a stretch to believe that R2 has much of the same source as R1. And that R3 has much of the same source as R2. So _if_ R1 is a partial or complete copy of fruit, R1 is automatically GPL code. And unless R2 was 100% rewritten, R2 would also be GPL. Ditto for R3.
Enrique wrote:
Guesswork. Many "would", "if", "unless", "believe" in your writing above. Tournament organizers cannot base any decisions on guesswork, educated or not. Reverse engineer R3 and prove that GPL code from the non commercial R1 beta still exists in Rybka 3. The rest is mere assumption, and one doesn't accuse based on assumptions.
Enrique
Hyatt replied:
The case against R1 looks pretty convincing based on duplicate code that has actually been published with no ifs, ands or buts or "thinks" associated. That looks to be bad, IMHO. I suppose someone will, sooner or later, apply the same reverse-engineering to R2 and R3, to see what they find out.
However, the assumptions being discussed here are very solidly founded in software engineering practices. As far as tournaments go, my policy would be quite simple there. If someone clones a program and enters it as their own work, and then it is proven that the code was a copy/clone of another program, then they are banned from competition for life. If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned...
Further that you disapprove of any back-dated attack on the status of any Rybka version entered into a past tournament and using that to forward ban the program/programmer in the future?
Chris
It means quite simply, as per your comment
Bob wrote:
If someone clones a program and enters it as their own work, and then it is proven that the code was a copy/clone of another program, then they are banned from competition for life. If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned...
Do you disapprove of an attempt to try to use "the case against R1" as a means to discredit the program/programmer and get him banned for life and being unable to compete using R2/R3
The words "If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned... " suggest so. If you can prove R1, you want Rybka banned. That's my reading of what you wrote.
I do not write ambiguously. The current effort is looking at rybka 1. If that produces completely convincing evidence of copying, then rybka 2 has to be looked at next. I believe, based on 40 years of writing these things, that there is a _high_ probability that version 2 re-uses lots of code from version 1 of any piece of complex software. That is hardly a "giant leap". If R2 is based on R1, and R3 is based on R2, then all three have a huge problem with respect to entering ICGA events based on the rules currently in place.
GenoM wrote:I appreciated your point, Eelco, but so far neither Christophe, neither Zach or Norman, or Robert Hyatt can be blamed of witchhunting.
Regards,
Geno
Hi Evgenii,
I appreciate your point, I agree with it, it is just that if discussions seem to drag on without anybody really able to say what are actually are the grounds for this discussion, because these still have to be made up, I think that would be enough even for any legal case or even just an ICGA case to be nulled, thrown out of "court", before it ever came to that. What is Vas going to respond to? He can't respond to anything yet. Is that fair? I don't think that would be fair.
That is just what I wanted to say.
Have a good weekend Evgenii!
Eelco
Seems one(Bob) if not all those named above (by Evgenii ) have already made up their minds about Rybka/VAS, if my reading comprehension is up to snuff.
Quote:
Hyatt replied:
The case against R1 looks pretty convincing based on duplicate code that has actually been published with no ifs, ands or buts or "thinks" associated. That looks to be bad, IMHO. I suppose someone will, sooner or later, apply the same reverse-engineering to R2 and R3, to see what they find out.
DUPLICATE CODES-NO IFS-ANDS OR BUTS.I reiterate, it seems they've made up their minds already.
<sigh> More "out of context". How about including the key words "based on duplicate code that has actually been published"??? That evidence is quite compelling, because the probability of such happening by chance is vanishingly small. So yes, the duplicate code published so far looks to be convincing and it doesn't take any imagination or Ouija board to make inferences. More similar code will only increase the probability of copying. Let's see what comes out next...
If your text below is not actually a call for the banning of Rybka/Vas for life, would you possibly like to make a statement that is not your intention to call into question any problem with Rybka version in Beijing, no reason to believe there is a problem with that version and no justification either to inspect its source code nor to call for a ban on the program/programmer?
If Rybka is a copy of fruit, yes it should be banned permanently. It has not been proven yet. The evidence is certainly alarming, IMHO, but this takes time. However, personally, I have little use for those that would outright copy another program and then claim "I didn't copy anything." What is so outrageous about that position???
Further that you disapprove of any back-dated attack on the status of any Rybka version entered into a past tournament and using that to forward ban the program/programmer in the future?
Chris
I don't even know what that means...
Hyatt wrote:
The GPL is specific, once you start with GPL code, your code is GPL until _every last line_ has been rewritten so that not one single line of GPL code remains. It is not much of a stretch to believe that R2 has much of the same source as R1. And that R3 has much of the same source as R2. So _if_ R1 is a partial or complete copy of fruit, R1 is automatically GPL code. And unless R2 was 100% rewritten, R2 would also be GPL. Ditto for R3.
Enrique wrote:
Guesswork. Many "would", "if", "unless", "believe" in your writing above. Tournament organizers cannot base any decisions on guesswork, educated or not. Reverse engineer R3 and prove that GPL code from the non commercial R1 beta still exists in Rybka 3. The rest is mere assumption, and one doesn't accuse based on assumptions.
Enrique
Hyatt replied:
The case against R1 looks pretty convincing based on duplicate code that has actually been published with no ifs, ands or buts or "thinks" associated. That looks to be bad, IMHO. I suppose someone will, sooner or later, apply the same reverse-engineering to R2 and R3, to see what they find out.
However, the assumptions being discussed here are very solidly founded in software engineering practices. As far as tournaments go, my policy would be quite simple there. If someone clones a program and enters it as their own work, and then it is proven that the code was a copy/clone of another program, then they are banned from competition for life. If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned...
Further that you disapprove of any back-dated attack on the status of any Rybka version entered into a past tournament and using that to forward ban the program/programmer in the future?
Chris
It means quite simply, as per your comment
Bob wrote:
If someone clones a program and enters it as their own work, and then it is proven that the code was a copy/clone of another program, then they are banned from competition for life. If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned...
Do you disapprove of an attempt to try to use "the case against R1" as a means to discredit the program/programmer and get him banned for life and being unable to compete using R2/R3
The words "If the case against R1 is proven, R2 and R3 become moot as far as I am concerned... " suggest so. If you can prove R1, you want Rybka banned. That's my reading of what you wrote.
I do not write ambiguously. The current effort is looking at rybka 1. If that produces completely convincing evidence of copying, then rybka 2 has to be looked at next. I believe, based on 40 years of writing these things, that there is a _high_ probability that version 2 re-uses lots of code from version 1 of any piece of complex software. That is hardly a "giant leap". If R2 is based on R1, and R3 is based on R2, then all three have a huge problem with respect to entering ICGA events based on the rules currently in place.
Well, in that case since you've not yet made your case against R1, that's still being worked on - the anti-anti side will want some time to check what you've done and have the opportunity to refute it - Beijing is very close - so R2 being looked at "next" won't happen fast enough for start of Beijing, let alone R3 ...... so .....
Will you make a statement that the participation of Rybka 3 or whatever version they call it now at Beijing is not under any sort of threat as far as you are concerned?
