What should Robert do? (read post first before you vote)

[zullil]

There is not a shred of evidence that Ippolit was produced by reverse engineering Rybka.
Ippolit is an original engine. PERIOD.

Interesting. So in your opinion it wasn't produced by reverse engineering any existing engine? Interesting.

Does anyone other than you believe this?

[Lavir]

That's a question for the Engine Origin section of this board. If you wish I can answer you overthere and more or less did in this thread.

Thank you. I will do.

Concerning however what you wrote in that thread, those proofs are just translated terms that are however present both in the free and gpl sources, so they still reside in the public domain (as I said, translation of a term cannot represent proprietary work because *everybody* can do the same; it wouldn't be doable to for example taking the source of a freeware game, translate captions and then publish the same under GPL license and having people subject to the same; it couldn't be enforced).

[Rebel]

That's a question for the Engine Origin section of this board. If you wish I can answer you overthere and more or less did in this thread.

Thank you. I will do.

Concerning however what you wrote in that thread, those proofs are just translated terms that are however present both in the free and gpl sources, so they still reside in the public domain (as I said, translation of a term cannot represent proprietary work because *everybody* can do the same; it wouldn't be doable to for example taking the source of a freeware game, translate captions and then publish the same under GPL license and having people subject to the same; it couldn't be enforced).

What you need is the source code of the Italian version (0084) and the English version (0085e). Then open the file utilita.c (0084) and utils.c (0085e). You will see the exact order of 19 error messages as they appear in Houdini 1.0. The chance of 2 programmers writing such code independently is zero.

[IGarcia]

There is not a shred of evidence that Ippolit was produced by reverse engineering Rybka.
Ippolit is an original engine. PERIOD.

Interesting. So in your opinion it wasn't produced by reverse engineering any existing engine? Interesting.

Does anyone other than you believe this?

It woks in opposite way. YOU has to proof witch engine was RE to make Ippolit. Its original until someone proof the opposite.

And its NOT logical to RE a weak engine to produce a strong one, maybe the strongest its the one has to be RE. So, because Ippolit performance, it makes sense to suggest the RE engine was the strongest at that moment: Rybka. And there is no proof of this.

By the way, its controversial to change a license from Freeware to GPL because translation and bugfix. Even its possible, how you can proof a next work its based in one or other?

As was possible for someone to translate and bugfix the GPL release, other can do the same and release a commercial.

(This for Ed)
What if a Rebel freeware is translated by me to spanish and then released under GPL? Even its possible won't be that against your original intentions?

Regards.

[Lavir]

What you need is the source code of the Italian version (0084) and the English version (0085e). Then open the file utilita.c (0084) and utils.c (0085e). You will see the exact order of 19 error messages as they appear in Houdini 1.0. The chance of 2 programmers writing such code independently is zero.

I understand what you say, but still, they are just translations. Even if the order is the same as the one of the GPL (that's different from the one of the italian and free) there's nothing of proprietary there because the "soul" (for lack of better word) of the code belongs to the free version.

While it is true that the possibility of two people coming with the same exact order with a translation is nonexistent, still everybody can do that translation and if I use one already done by another individual (that pertains to free code and that everybody can use) I do nothing wrong because the code is free to begin with. The translation is just a "representation" of the code, not the code itself.

[JuLieN]

As I see it, accusations without providing evidence are worthless and when given the chance by the initiative of Sven (June 2010) Vas failed again what he should have done in the first place when he made the Ippolit claim 8 months earlier.

By his refusal to do so the claim lost its right, perhaps even on a juridical base. So Ippolit is freeware. Everybody is free to start from it. Julien as a lawyer might want to shed his light on this.

Sure! Actually, by waiting too much, Vas only lost a part of his rights (in my country anyway). Since 2007, patent or brand infringement has a three-years prescription (it was ten years before, but I guess we had to change it for EU conformity). But copyright infringement, business dishonesty ("concurrence déloyale") or brand infringement when the brand is notorious are prescribed by five years... starting with (and here the law changed) "the titular of the (infringed) right knew or should have known" the facts infringing his rights (Art. 2224, Fr. Civil code). (before it was "since the harm started"). Note that the judges would be less understanding with a "professional of the field" taking too long to act (because he has less excuses not to notice the harm done to his rights). So, for copyright infringement (code theft, here) Vas can still act until 2014. That is... if he has a case.

Regarding Houdini, and IF Houdini started from public domain code, Robert Houdart did nothing illegal. Ethically wrong by not acknowledging the sources base of his engine, yes, but not illegal. (But I take that your poll bears ethical grounds, not legal grounds, and I too think that Robert Houdart should not deny Houdini's origin.) In the other hand, Richard Vida most probably broke criminal laws, maybe business law if his legal opponent can prove he is a competitor in the economical meaning of the word, and probably contract law if he broke Houdini's license (this I can't be sure, because I don't own Houdini myself). So if Richard Vida asks for all Robodini threads to be removed we will probably do that. (We, btw, never delete anything: all the removed posts/threads are put into a non-public archive.)

(BTW, I'm not a lawyer, I'm a jurist and a law teacher.)

[Lavir]

Regarding Houdini, and IF Houdini started from public domain code, Robert Houdart did nothing illegal. Ethically wrong by not acknowledging the sources base of his engine, yes, but not illegal.

This I understand and, in fact, I agree. Ethically Robert could have indeed done a bad thing (more in the how than in what he has done), but what I insist is that he is not (and has not been) the only one to do so, while for how people behave it instead seems he is. Richard has done a much worse thing now (and again not in the what but in the HOW that it's much more important) and it's as if nothing happened for many just because the "victim" is Robert.

So why only Robert should get the mark of the villain when everybody else of his "competitors" have done the same things? If he has done some ethically/morally dubious moves others have done exactly the same but with the difference that instead of being labelled as "copiers" they got the contrary result and this is clearly nonsense [oh please don't ever try to insist that thy didn't start pasting source, since there's no difference at all if you implement something in a different way as long as you take everything in the structure that compose a certain thing].

It's difficult to be a copier if you are around a mass of copiers, the same as it is difficult for a sheep to be labelled as such by another one.

So, I think something must be done for what it concerns chess tournament and this issue. It's clear that Ippo/Robbo are a reality and they are here to stay and be used by everyone that wants to do so. So some clear definition about what constitutes originality that goes beyond the use of this by now public domain material must take place instead.

[hgm]

Ok. Let's now assume that there is 100% proof of Robert using the English GPL version (also if there isn't), where is the proof that Robert used the work proprietary of Norman and Milos? Translating is NOT proprietary work at all

Actually, you are wrong about that. Translating does earn you copyrights. (In so far it is not mindless automated transform, such as a compiler does.) It just does not break the copyrights of the original work. After translation both the original author and the translator own copyrights, and are not allowed to use the work without each other's permission.

[zullil]

There is not a shred of evidence that Ippolit was produced by reverse engineering Rybka.
Ippolit is an original engine. PERIOD.

Interesting. So in your opinion it wasn't produced by reverse engineering any existing engine? Interesting.

Does anyone other than you believe this?

It woks in opposite way. YOU has to proof witch engine was RE to make Ippolit. Its original until someone proof the opposite.

No, I don't need to prove anything, since I haven't made any claims about the origin of this engine. (Which is good, because I know nothing about the origin.) I simply found Lucas's assertions interesting, since I thought (perhaps wrongly) that most engine authors are convinced that reverse engineering was involved in the creation of Ippolit.

[velmarin]

Ok. Let's now assume that there is 100% proof of Robert using the English GPL version (also if there isn't), where is the proof that Robert used the work proprietary of Norman and Milos? Translating is NOT proprietary work at all

Actually, you are wrong about that. Translating does earn you copyrights. (In so far it is not mindless automated transform, such as a compiler does.) It just does not break the copyrights of the original work. After translation both the original author and the translator own copyrights, and are not allowed to use the work without each other's permission.

No, I could make a second translation into Castilian, and have another GPL.
The following would make a Portuguese translation, and we would have another GPL:

No friend, Norman GPL is smoke, and only hurt his insistence, are issues that should not be mixed.


PUBLICDOMAIN

Code: Select all

/*
RobboLito is a UCI chess playing engine by
Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin, Igor Igorovich Igoronov, Roberto Pescatore
copyright: (C) 2009 Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin
date: 92th and 93rd year from Revolution
owners: PUBLICDOMAIN (workers)
dedication: To Vladimir Ilyich

GPL same paragraph, is an incongruity

Code: Select all

RobboLito is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published
by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License,
or (at your option) any later version.

RobboLito is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
GNU General Public License for more details.

You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program. If not, see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/.
*/

You can not swim
and save l to clothing.

Posdta:
With Visual Studio, take three or four hours to make a decent translation.