Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Once upon a time . . .
- - By Razor (****) Date 2011-03-05 17:42
This forum used to spend most of its time discussing chess; the future for chess and indeed chess software itself, looked very promising.  Now it seems the forum spends most of its time looking back at the past; perhaps driven by the fact that some of us are venting our frustrations on the lack of a Rybka upgrade.  Perhaps there is a more malicious undertone at work here - who knows . . .

All I feel is that this is again another example of what is so sad about human behaviour that instead of focusing on all the good things that have happened these past few years in the world of chess {and I do not preclude others here - many great things have been achieved by many} we instead prefer to focus on all the negatives.  How very sad and worse still, incredibly destructive.  :sad:
Parent - - By sockmonkey (***) Date 2011-03-05 18:04
To be accurate, what is destructive is copying and cloning. Whether it happened 5 years or 5 weeks ago, if it happened, that was the destructive act, not the current turmoil (which never would have gotten this far without the initial (alleged) act).
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2011-03-05 18:21
Please google "software cloning", find out what it means, and let me know how it is relevant to any discussion on this forum. Thanks.
Parent - - By sockmonkey (***) Date 2011-03-05 18:30
I'll invite you to do the same re the "clones". Why do Rybka fans become quibblers, sticklers and ethically ambivalent the moment they are on the receiving end of the clone stick? I mean, sidserious seriously tried to argue "youthful indiscretion" last night.

We are, in this particular discussion, referring to the literal copy/paste usage of licensed source code. In the terms popularized by this forum, just ask Felix, that's "cloning". If you want to discuss exactly what sort of copyright violations we are talking about, I'm open for that conversation, as well.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2011-03-05 19:01
Cloning has no legal meaning with respect to US copyright law. Is this a European thing? I kind of doubt it...

As google will confirm, software cloning is generally meant to imply making a disk image, which doesn't seem pertinent here. Since I rarely agree with Felix, and believe he knows less about copyright than my dog, I won't bother asking for his opinion here.

My own purely speculative theory, is that Vas started experimenting with chess engines by taking Crafty and replacing modules one by one, then switched to Fruit when it came out, because he preferred the overall architecture. This technique of building a chess engine was originally proposed by Dr. Hyatt, and should involve replacing all of the modules prior to release. Carefully done, this should produce a completely legitimate engine. Since Vas generally does only 95% of the job prior to release, it wouldn't surprise me if a small percentage of unauthorized code was included in R1B. If that was indeed the case, it would be up to the owner of the copyright to make a claim and third parties have no standing. If a claim were filed for violation of GPL, the most likely outcome would be a cease and desist order, which wouldn't be particularly relevant with respect to R1B.

I would be astounded if R4 has any code that is not either original or public domain in nature.
Parent - - By tomgdrums (****) Date 2011-03-05 19:59

> Cloning has no legal meaning with respect to US copyright law. Is this a European thing? I kind of doubt it...
>


I think he understands that.

> If that was indeed the case, it would be up to the owner of the copyright to make a claim and third parties have no standing.


I think Fabien's name was first on the list wasn't it?
Parent - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2011-03-05 20:03
I seem to recall that Fabien transferred his rights to FSF, or something along those lines.
Parent - - By Tom Barrister (*) Date 2011-03-07 16:30
Cloning has no legal meaning with respect to US copyright law. Is this a European thing? I kind of doubt it...

Ever hear of the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act"?  How about the "Recording Industry Association of America"?  The word "clone" may not legally exist, but the process of cloning, as it's commonly understood, is.

As google will confirm, software cloning is generally meant to imply making a disk image

Google isn't the law.  Using copyrighted material without permission of the owner (with a few exceptions which aren't applicable here) is infringement of copyright.  That's illegal in the US and in most other countries.
Parent - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2011-03-07 16:46
Ever hear of the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act"?
The number of times the word clone appears in the DMCA is 0.

How about the "Recording Industry Association of America"?
I see no relevance here to anything the RIAA is doing. Perhaps you could elaborate.

Google isn't the law.
Google is an excellent tool for searching documents and finding precedents.

Using copyrighted material without permission of the owner (with a few exceptions which aren't applicable here) is infringement of copyright.
Thank you for this revelation. The discussion is about whether Rybka contains copyright material.
Parent - By tomgdrums (****) Date 2011-03-05 19:58

> I'll invite you to do the same re the "clones". Why do Rybka fans become quibblers, sticklers and ethically ambivalent the moment they are on the receiving end of the clone stick? I mean, sidserious seriously tried to argue "youthful indiscretion" last night.


+1

I agree that the hypocrisy is appalling.
Parent - - By Razor (****) Date 2011-03-06 08:43
I rest my case sockmonkey - you can go through life trying to force others to think like you or you can accept that not everyone will - all that you and others like you achieve is pointless debate; nothing will change re: copying others ideas.  It was happening before I was born and will continue beyond my time on this planet.
Parent - - By sockmonkey (***) Date 2011-03-06 09:08
Cornered, the Rybka-fan will change the debate from "code copying" to "idea copying". This defense mechanism, while loud and impressive, has demonstrated no particular advantage for continued survival of the species.

You are a bunch of hypocrites.

Jeremy
Parent - - By Razor (****) Date 2011-03-06 09:21
I will assume because you have replied to my post that you in some way believe I belong to a group called 'Rybka Fans' - and that this means I am in some way in a worse place now in terms of my 'credibility' in yours {and others} eyes then when I started this thread?  Sure, if this means I admire what Vas and others {and I include in others all those who have made software outplay the best humans that money can buy} have achieved then I stand before you a guilty man.  If you are asking me to judge how they got there then I am not interested - I'm not interested for the reasons I mentioned earlier not because I admire the achievements Vas and others have achieved.

As I said before, all of this becomes pointless - some of us recognise this early on in our lives, others never do.
Parent - - By sockmonkey (***) Date 2011-03-06 09:38
For the same reason I cannot admire a marathon runner who grabs a cab 5 minutes into the race, sits a couple of hours in a cafe, and rejoins 5 minutes before the finish line to win an amazing victory, I cannot admire a software developer who copies the code (the code, not the ideas) of others to achieve a world champion chess program.

I don't question your credibility. I question your ability to see and evaluate the situation as it actually is. If Vas did what he is alleged to have done (which an overwhelming amount of evidence currently supports (in contrast to the "clone" debates, in which absolutely no evidence was offered, I might add)), he not only acted unethically, but illegally, to achieve Rybka. Is that pointless hair-splitting? Is it so important to have a strong chess program that you could commit fraud and violate copyright to do so? Clearly you are comfortable using that product, that's your choice, but the person who committed fraud and copyright violation is still culpable.

If all you care about is having the strongest software in your hands, no matter how it came to be, then, yes, this debate is pointless. But then you have much more in common with the scowling pirate hordes at ImmoFo than you probably care to admit. And you would be using Escape Artist if that were the case -- but you likely don't because you feel like it achieved its strength through unethical means.

Again, this is simply hypocrisy. Some of use recognize this early on in our lives, others never do.

Jeremy
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2011-03-06 09:48
It would be really neat if you could have a program that was much stronger than anything else out there by just copying code, but I suspect it's not that easy.
Parent - By sockmonkey (***) Date 2011-03-06 10:08
Sure, sure. Our marathon runner ran 10 minutes by himself, too.

Jeremy
Parent - By Razor (****) Date 2011-03-06 12:03
I wish you the best of luck in your attempt to change the way people behave; if not doing this makes me a hypocrite in your eyes then guess what, I'm big enough to take your 'name-calling' and still wish you the best of luck in your endeavours.
Parent - By AWRIST (****) Date 2011-03-07 18:32
In professional computerchess where the source code is closed, everyone wants to be the strongest and best. If you only took code from other competitors you couldnt become a winner, so you have to find creative news. These novelties make the difference. Because what is best, has been taken anyway by all.

So, in such a situation, Vas was the best and 100 and more Elo points ahead of others. Smart people get that Vas never could have had this success only with stolen code. Because then the others who also have closed sources (with stolen or taken code, but without being examined yet!) would be as strong as Vas. Questions?

My own verdict. All commercial engine sources must be RE and opened in public just like Rybka and then we all could see why the panel and the tribunal by Levy is hypocritical falsehood. Your commentary?

Moral: The scapegoating of Rybka is basically the destruction of the sportive competition in computer chess. I warned for a long time, but nobody, also Prof. Hyatt, wanted to listen. Often the blind spot in a field can be better detected from outside observers like me than by internal experts.
Parent - - By Loboestepario (****) Date 2011-03-06 12:16
Human behavior is fine, you however seem to be guilty of the same problem you are trying to report: not focusing on chess
Parent - By Razor (****) Date 2011-03-06 12:22
Guilty as charged!  :sad:
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Once upon a time . . .

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill