Now that the attackers are retreating from their "code copying" allegations, unsurprisingly, because there is no copied code; they are trying it on with their new supposedly catch-all concept "non-literal copying".

BB/Watkins in the OPenChess forum:

Re: David Levy responds to Chessbase's response to ICGA verd
by BB+ » Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:42 am

The phrase "nonliteral code copying" or "nonliteral copying of code" is not exactly common (the preference indeed seems to be to drop "code" when talking about "nonliteral copying", or to say "copying of nonliteral elements"), but it does get used occasionally (perhaps in more colloquial settings). For instance, pages 5ff of this 2011 PDF.

Literal and Nonliteral Copying
In the beginning, you’ll need to consider and determine the type of copying at issue: is it literal or nonliteral copying of the code and/or one or several of the more conceptual elements identified above? Literal copying might involve the direct copying of source or object code in the same programming language or the wholesale borrowing of a screen display. Nonliteral copying might inhabit the netherworld of non-literal elements, such as a program’s structure and fundamental essence or it could involve code paraphrasing in a different programming language.

Some of these concepts are illustrated by Marketing Technology Solutions Inc. v. Medizine LLC, an unpublished decision from the Southern District of New York. No. 09 Civ. 8122 (LMM), 2010 WL 2034404 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2010) unpublished). The Medizine court was faced with allegations of literal and nonliteral copying of code. [...]
If nothing else, I'd say that most persons would understand "nonliteral code copying" if the phrase were used, whereas something like "original at the source code level" seems much more opaque. The corresponding phrase when talking about books would probably be "nonliteral copying of text", which again I'd agree is suboptimal, but the reader should be able to discern what is meant.

In the case at hand, juxtaposing two snippets from Levy's comments and implying there is a contradiction seems a bit unwarranted. In particular, Levy's first comment continues by enlarging on the "copying" issue, while his second comment is intertwined with other copying aspects. I do agree that the second answer could be more pedantically strained, though the question itself tends to the sloppiness in language, in that it seems to want to define "derivative" quantitatively merely in terms of (literal) "code". Perhaps Levy should have said "derived" rather than "copied", or just not used the word "code" at all, though I'd have to agree with Bob that at this point the context and intent should be clear to most.
BB+

Posts: 1078
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 4:26 am


I draw readers attention to the definition given:

Nonliteral copying might inhabit the netherworld of non-literal elements, such as a program’s structure

And what, pray, is the most fundamental "structure" of a program? Could it perhaps be the DATA STRUCTURE?

And the Fruit fundamantal data structure is what exactly? Mailbox.

And the Rybka fundamental data structure? Bitboard.

Could they be ANY MORE DIFFERENT at this "Nonliteral level"? A total change in fundamental structure. So the non-literal copying is where exactly?