Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Support / My 2 cents on the Rybka - Fruit GPL violation (if any)
But you are compelled to answer every post with your dogmatic dribble- that hasn't deviate from the first post you logged on with. With all that has been offered up, and in view of other documented examples- given past dialogues presented here that you have had with programmers -it seems that if it is not in keeping with your determination, you dismiss it off hand. You're the man, and you have to be in authority- and apparently, no one is allowed to question that authority, once you have decided a point, you are off to the races-there is no turning back and you will run over anyone who challenges your views with the same dogmatic dribble over and over and over again.
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
In this particular circumstance, "the panel is 'da man'" yes. And then once we finished, "the ICGA is 'da man" yes.
It would seem that you don't like it. But what you like doesn't matter in this case...
It would seem that you don't like it. But what you like doesn't matter in this case...
What would you do if David Levy turned around and changed the ruling? Do you say it will never happen? Can you be that sure? Do you have control over everything Bob?
I think that there is a snowball's chance in hell type probability. I suppose that _is_ remotely possible. I won't be betting on it any time soon. If you want to take that side of a bet, however, I am more than willing and able to do so... Only stipulation is a reasonable time-frame. say 5 years max... I'm not going to wait forever to get paid.
I think that there is a snowball's chance in hell type probability. I suppose that _is_ remotely possible. I won't be betting on it any time soon. If you want to take that side of a bet, however, I am more than willing and able to do so... Only stipulation is a reasonable time-frame. say 5 years max... I'm not going to wait forever to get paid.
Bob, I'll bite.
Following scenario:
You pay 1 million € to me IF and only if the following will happen as I tell you now. Right? If not you get the 1 million. Ok?
The scenario is the following. I need a 10 minutes meeting with David Levy in a secured room in the building of the MOSSAD in Israel. Afterwards the doors are opened and David is talking to the press. First that he has now changed the ban against Vasik into a welcome back note because he, David, has understood, why the whole panel research is a hoax. And that Vas is innocent. Vas gets a recompensation of at least 5 million €.
And then David is making a second announcement. But that must be kept secret until you agree to the bet and tell me where you have deposed the money for me so that I could reach it at the instant after David has made his speech. The items of this announcement are so complicated that they only become public in the moment when David speaks.
Are you game?
Bob, I'll bite.
Following scenario:
You pay 1 million € to me IF and only if the following will happen as I tell you now. Right? If not you get the 1 million. Ok?
The scenario is the following. I need a 10 minutes meeting with David Levy in a secured room in the building of the MOSSAD in Israel. Afterwards the doors are opened and David is talking to the press. First that he has now changed the ban against Vasik into a welcome back note because he, David, has understood, why the whole panel research is a hoax. And that Vas is innocent. Vas gets a recompensation of at least 5 million €.
And then David is making a second announcement. But that must be kept secret until you agree to the bet and tell me where you have deposed the money for me so that I could reach it at the instant after David has made his speech. The items of this announcement are so complicated that they only become public in the moment when David speaks.
Are you game?
Are you serious? Or demented? Or both?
![[fr]](/mwf/v12/flags/fr.png "France")
it is very very difficult to get an organisation, or a member within it, to retract a previous publicly made statement. it becomes too much wrapped up with the credibility of the organisation. my guess is that any org, icga included, will hang on to the last little thread of spider's web, dangling in the wind, rather than admit a previous judgement was a mistake.
it was a mistake btw
it was a mistake btw
Even Bob Hyatt sees the futility of what the ICGA has down and knows it cannot be rectified-the only thing left is to go all out and attempt to justify it against all odds. That is really sad.
What would you do should Levy decide that there now is enough conflicting data indicating the need to take another look. This is quite normal in these types of cases where publicity generates interest and interest generates closer study. It is no wonder that you are zealously attempting to put out all the fires that crop up to avoid just this kind of outcome-but, are you capable of silencing everyone who sees a flaw in the previous proceedings and generates new data that presents a differing perspective?
Robert you can write whatever you want on this forum nobody on the ICGA board is going to see it they have better things to do than read your posts.
It's hard to imagine why Robert would care if the members of the ICGA board were reading his posts or not. What am I missing here?
I thought I was posing questions to Bob Hyatt? Besides, how do you know what the members of the panel are up to - or have you also been drinking from the same Well waters as the omniscient and all knowing Dr. Bob?
![[nl]](/mwf/v12/flags/nl.png "Netherlands")
The ICGA has pushed computer chess 5 years backwards in time, so nobody in the chess world will care about them anymore. To chess players the ICGA was irrelevant anyway, so nothing changes. Tilburg will be a 2nd rate WCCC event and whoever wins it will not be taken seriously as a world champion. It is like Khalifman winning the FIDE knockout WC. Chess players and GM's will know which programs are best and these programs they will use.
Mark has never been and never will be in Vas's class. Just like all the others. Deal with it. I have spotted some very interesting search behaviour in Hiarcs 13, so I couldn't resist a big smile seeing which way Mark is currently going. If you can't beat them, join them.
Mark has never been and never will be in Vas's class. Just like all the others. Deal with it. I have spotted some very interesting search behaviour in Hiarcs 13, so I couldn't resist a big smile seeing which way Mark is currently going. If you can't beat them, join them.
> Mark has never been and never will be in Vas's class.
No, but my program is currently giving TSCP a run for its money!
Hi Mark,
Can you tell us if there are Fruit/Strelka/Robbo/Ippo/Rybka ideas implemented in the latest Hiarcs version and/or the versions you used in the WCCC?
Can you tell us if there are Fruit/Strelka/Robbo/Ippo/Rybka ideas implemented in the latest Hiarcs version and/or the versions you used in the WCCC?
That is not mark u look at the flag.
You have been conned by a clone of him.
You have been conned by a clone of him.
Then please forward my question to the real Mark.
you have his email address, do it yourself.
Sorry for the confusion, Jeroen. As Harvey pointed out, I'm not "that" Mark.
It's true, though, that my program is giving TSCP some trouble!
It's true, though, that my program is giving TSCP some trouble!
> Mark has never been and never will be in Vas's class
You are right he will never be in Vas's class as a plagarist.
If you have spotted something and have some evidence, against Hiarcs, present it. I would love to see it. If Mark is ever proved guilty by the ICGA I would not blindly defend him as some of the Rybka fanboys defend Vas.
Has Vas ever written a chess engine by himself? The evidence suggests not.
I am sure you were not party to any indescretions that may have occured by Vas and your loyalty can only be admired. However it is sad that you are wearing blinkers.
I will stop defending Vas when an unbiased judge says in court that he is guilty.
To discredit a guy who has been totally dominating computer chess since 2006, who won almost all tournaments he participated in and added hundreds of elo points to Rybka strength shows just what bad taste you have. It must have been utterly frustrating to you, seeing this happening.
And you know what was really sad? That you asked the ICGA to ban cluster software to improve Hiarcs's chances in the WCCC. You were also very keen on trying this elsewhere, claiming time and time again 'that clusters are spoiling the tournaments'. It shows clearly that you want it all backwards to improve Hiarcs' chances. Levy being from the UK must be of great help to you.
But congratulations on your self proclaimed world title. I can still remember the crushing defeat we inflicted on you, showing who the real champion is.
To discredit a guy who has been totally dominating computer chess since 2006, who won almost all tournaments he participated in and added hundreds of elo points to Rybka strength shows just what bad taste you have. It must have been utterly frustrating to you, seeing this happening.
And you know what was really sad? That you asked the ICGA to ban cluster software to improve Hiarcs's chances in the WCCC. You were also very keen on trying this elsewhere, claiming time and time again 'that clusters are spoiling the tournaments'. It shows clearly that you want it all backwards to improve Hiarcs' chances. Levy being from the UK must be of great help to you.
But congratulations on your self proclaimed world title. I can still remember the crushing defeat we inflicted on you, showing who the real champion is.
I remember chatting with you at leiden before Rybka had its 1st Cluster at that time you agreed with me. You will probably deny it now of course. You and I agreed that opening books were a key component but we would be very happy to see = hardware.
I am a mamber of the ICGA and therefore as entitled as any other member to suggest any rule change so that it can be discussed.
It is very sad the way we have now been awarded the title for 2008. Particularly sad for people like you and Hans who worked incredibly hard on all these competitions. What is sadder still is that you have decided to take it personally.
I am a mamber of the ICGA and therefore as entitled as any other member to suggest any rule change so that it can be discussed.
It is very sad the way we have now been awarded the title for 2008. Particularly sad for people like you and Hans who worked incredibly hard on all these competitions. What is sadder still is that you have decided to take it personally.
I was very clear in my comments here at the forum regarding the sudden rule change in the WCCC about cluster software.
You have taken care of a rule change that suited Hiarcs and which was made without consulting other participants. Which clearly indicates that you used it to create favourable WCCC conditions. The fact that Levy insisted to make this rule change only for chess just showed how pathetic this was.
It is very sad the way we have now been awarded the title for 2008.
Yes, I can see the crocodile tears in your eyes!
Once again: you want it all backwards. Go back to 2006 as if nothing has happened. But the situation has changed dramatically. Deal with it.
You have taken care of a rule change that suited Hiarcs and which was made without consulting other participants. Which clearly indicates that you used it to create favourable WCCC conditions. The fact that Levy insisted to make this rule change only for chess just showed how pathetic this was.
It is very sad the way we have now been awarded the title for 2008.
Yes, I can see the crocodile tears in your eyes!
Once again: you want it all backwards. Go back to 2006 as if nothing has happened. But the situation has changed dramatically. Deal with it.
i remember thinking at the time you had conveniantly forgotten our conversation in leiden. Never mind.
Exactly what should I deal with? It only seems to be you that has issues. Any member of the ICGA can suggest a rule change.
Rybka for the moment is banned so you deal with it.
Exactly what should I deal with? It only seems to be you that has issues. Any member of the ICGA can suggest a rule change.
Rybka for the moment is banned so you deal with it.
Simple. I would have no choice but to accept his change of heart. I would certainly not agree with him after having seen the evidence. But then again, this is _not_ going to happen, so playing a few hands of "what if" is not going to settle anything at all.
If that's the best you've got, we are nearing the end of the debate on the facts, and are now entering the twilight zone...
that will fit you better, it seems...
that will fit you better, it seems...
I was always taught to meet people half way!
Actually, if you wade through the bravado and simply look at the arguments, Rob has presented a good and correct reply. Majid is also correct about there being nothing illegal done--it's just that, as Rob correctly explains, this is irrelevant--Vas (most likely, depending on how you interpret "original work") violated the rules of the tournaments.
What is being overlooked, however, is that the ICGA extended and greatly overreached after the simple conclusion of rule violations in 2006 and 2007, and that is why the arguments concerning plagiarism arose. Whether Vas "cheated"...only he knows that. Cheating implies an intentional violation of the rules. It sounds likely that there were no longer any rule violations in 2008 and afterward.
What is being overlooked, however, is that the ICGA extended and greatly overreached after the simple conclusion of rule violations in 2006 and 2007, and that is why the arguments concerning plagiarism arose. Whether Vas "cheated"...only he knows that. Cheating implies an intentional violation of the rules. It sounds likely that there were no longer any rule violations in 2008 and afterward.
Would it be fair to say that the ICGA is using a half-truth in support of a further unsupportable supposition.
You're a scientist, right? There are thousands of posts here and not a single one clearly showing copied code that would even approach copyright violation in a Rybka version that competed in ICGA. Can you provide one? Thanks.
I don't follow the 2008 and beyond. Vas could have raised that issue in his defense. Had he raised a defense at all. And he could have proven that (say) Rybka 3 is clean. I don't think there's a chance 2.3.2a is clean based on the eval similarities previously exposed in the panel report to the ICGA.
What I find most interesting about these discussions is that there is apparently some threshold for copying, below which it is perfectly OK, while if you cross that line, it is not. Even though there is no such qualification in the ICGA rule, nor in copyright law.
Let's take a couple of legal examples. Murder for starters, and no, I am not equating this copying stuff to murder, but it makes a good point. Premeditated murder, where the sentence (if guilty) is typically life without parole, or a death sentence. At trial absolute evidence showing the accused did the crime is shown. Does it matter whether he shot him once and killed the victim? Stabbed him once? Stabbed him many times? Buried him alive? Etc? Doesn't make a bit of difference how much pain and suffering was involved to render the verdict. What about the sentence? Often there is no leeway there. Kill a cop, get the death sentence. Doesn't matter how you did it.
Now, theft of money. If you rob a bank, and the bank reports 25,000 is missing, and the cops come to your house and find 25,000 there. You argue that some of that is your money, and the bank doesn't have a list of all serial numbers. But they have some. And they are in "the loot." What now? Are you charged with stealing the entire 25,000? Are you found guilty? what if you can produce proof that you withdrew 10,000 in cash that day from an ATM? OK, now we can argue reasonable doubt on the amount actually stolen. Does it matter? It may well. For example, most states and the Feds as well, factor in the value of stolen property to determine whether it is a misdemeanor or felony, and perhaps even between a C felony and a B felony. And the charge determines the sentencing range (the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt as matching serial numbers is a incontrovertible piece of evidence. But the amount is important in determining the punishment. And the accused, by mounting a defense, has cast doubt on the amount, at least. And the jury can believe him or not. And that affects the punishment. But suppose the accused was silent? He didn't mount any sort of defense, he didn't try to prove that part of the money recovered was not stolen? He gets zapped for the whole thing.
That is what happened here. Perhaps some rybka versions were clean. But some were clearly not. And Vas had no hope of getting off Scott-free with the evidence for early versions being so clear and damning. But perhaps some later versions could have been shown to be clean, and those titles would have not been stripped. But with no defense, there was no choice. And we ended up "here".
And again, so that this does not get twisted into another pointless debate about how serious copyright is, it is _not_ equivalent to murder. It could well be equivalent to stealing money, however...
What I find most interesting about these discussions is that there is apparently some threshold for copying, below which it is perfectly OK, while if you cross that line, it is not. Even though there is no such qualification in the ICGA rule, nor in copyright law.
Let's take a couple of legal examples. Murder for starters, and no, I am not equating this copying stuff to murder, but it makes a good point. Premeditated murder, where the sentence (if guilty) is typically life without parole, or a death sentence. At trial absolute evidence showing the accused did the crime is shown. Does it matter whether he shot him once and killed the victim? Stabbed him once? Stabbed him many times? Buried him alive? Etc? Doesn't make a bit of difference how much pain and suffering was involved to render the verdict. What about the sentence? Often there is no leeway there. Kill a cop, get the death sentence. Doesn't matter how you did it.
Now, theft of money. If you rob a bank, and the bank reports 25,000 is missing, and the cops come to your house and find 25,000 there. You argue that some of that is your money, and the bank doesn't have a list of all serial numbers. But they have some. And they are in "the loot." What now? Are you charged with stealing the entire 25,000? Are you found guilty? what if you can produce proof that you withdrew 10,000 in cash that day from an ATM? OK, now we can argue reasonable doubt on the amount actually stolen. Does it matter? It may well. For example, most states and the Feds as well, factor in the value of stolen property to determine whether it is a misdemeanor or felony, and perhaps even between a C felony and a B felony. And the charge determines the sentencing range (the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt as matching serial numbers is a incontrovertible piece of evidence. But the amount is important in determining the punishment. And the accused, by mounting a defense, has cast doubt on the amount, at least. And the jury can believe him or not. And that affects the punishment. But suppose the accused was silent? He didn't mount any sort of defense, he didn't try to prove that part of the money recovered was not stolen? He gets zapped for the whole thing.
That is what happened here. Perhaps some rybka versions were clean. But some were clearly not. And Vas had no hope of getting off Scott-free with the evidence for early versions being so clear and damning. But perhaps some later versions could have been shown to be clean, and those titles would have not been stripped. But with no defense, there was no choice. And we ended up "here".
And again, so that this does not get twisted into another pointless debate about how serious copyright is, it is _not_ equivalent to murder. It could well be equivalent to stealing money, however...
Your analogies can be interesting, though primarily in terms of correcting into correct analogies.
As for the murder one, there is no correct version of that analogy because the person is in one of two states: dead or alive. In the Rybka case, however, we have a continuum of states, depending on (a) how much code was used, (b) how much of that "used" would count as "directly copied, via copy and paste", and (c) how much this actually affects the program itself. Thus, any analogy of rape or murder, as fashionable as they seem to be, does not apply, and people using these analogies are simply assuming an ignorant audience who can't distinguish between valid and invalid analogies.
As for the theft of money analogy, this can be made to work, though with some major changes. First, the money can't be in a bank, but must be made freely available (such as a pile of money somewhere, or perhaps through some welfare program). Second, the amount that was taken is then reused for something similar. Here is such an example: a philanthropist gives $10,000 of his own money to each of 20 random individuals. One of these individuals, call him Ras Vajlich, then creates a fund with this money, claiming he has $30,000 of his "own" money for this fund, when in fact, some of the money ($500) came from someone else. He has become a much stronger philanthropist than his "competitor", but some of the money for this fund came from his "competitor".
As for the murder one, there is no correct version of that analogy because the person is in one of two states: dead or alive. In the Rybka case, however, we have a continuum of states, depending on (a) how much code was used, (b) how much of that "used" would count as "directly copied, via copy and paste", and (c) how much this actually affects the program itself. Thus, any analogy of rape or murder, as fashionable as they seem to be, does not apply, and people using these analogies are simply assuming an ignorant audience who can't distinguish between valid and invalid analogies.
As for the theft of money analogy, this can be made to work, though with some major changes. First, the money can't be in a bank, but must be made freely available (such as a pile of money somewhere, or perhaps through some welfare program). Second, the amount that was taken is then reused for something similar. Here is such an example: a philanthropist gives $10,000 of his own money to each of 20 random individuals. One of these individuals, call him Ras Vajlich, then creates a fund with this money, claiming he has $30,000 of his "own" money for this fund, when in fact, some of the money ($500) came from someone else. He has become a much stronger philanthropist than his "competitor", but some of the money for this fund came from his "competitor".
That is where you are simply dead wrong. You either copied code, or you didn't. In the case of the ICGA, it is black and white. There is no "minimum number of lines or procedures you must copy before you are considered ineligible to participate." In the GPL there is no minimum number of lines or procedures you must copy before you violate the GPL. And the same holds true for copyright. One might make a case for at least copyright law that the less you copy, the lower the penalty. But it doesn't change guilty/not guilty at all. In the case of the ICGA, however, participation requires originality, as is clearly written in the rules. You can't forfeit a part of a game, or a part of a tournament.
Your example fails to note "theft". And code was _definitely_ stolen in this case, it was not "given away to be used in any possible way." The license agreement in Crafty is quite specific. The rules for the ICGA events are quite specific.
Your example fails to note "theft". And code was _definitely_ stolen in this case, it was not "given away to be used in any possible way." The license agreement in Crafty is quite specific. The rules for the ICGA events are quite specific.
You are quite correct that this does not affect guilty vs. not guilty. However, how it is seen and dealt with in the community at large is affected in both cases (the actual situation that happened and in my correction of your analogy).
For me, to be accused of copying the work of someone else would be a bad experience. Wouldn't matter one bit whether I was accused of copying one procedure or one program. Copying is copying. Wrong is wrong.
In the ICGA case, it was a sort of "capital case" because for a tournament, the only punishment is the death sentence for that tournament. So how much was copied was really not important, it was more important to prove that copying had occurred...
For the ban, that is more than likely Vas' fault. He brushed off every attempt to get him to respond, both before the report was finished, and then he was given a 30 day window after it was finished where he could read it and offer anything he wanted for rebuttal or justification. He offered nothing. In light of that, the ban is not unreasonable.
The entire process seems reasonable, and accurate, regardless of what you read here. I suppose there are people here that would claim to be able to evaluate the work done by a surgeon as he uses the Da Vinci robot to perform a complex surgical procedure, just as easily as they can understand the process of de-compiling a program, and they can prove that the process doesn't work.
In the ICGA case, it was a sort of "capital case" because for a tournament, the only punishment is the death sentence for that tournament. So how much was copied was really not important, it was more important to prove that copying had occurred...
For the ban, that is more than likely Vas' fault. He brushed off every attempt to get him to respond, both before the report was finished, and then he was given a 30 day window after it was finished where he could read it and offer anything he wanted for rebuttal or justification. He offered nothing. In light of that, the ban is not unreasonable.
The entire process seems reasonable, and accurate, regardless of what you read here. I suppose there are people here that would claim to be able to evaluate the work done by a surgeon as he uses the Da Vinci robot to perform a complex surgical procedure, just as easily as they can understand the process of de-compiling a program, and they can prove that the process doesn't work.
![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
Watchman wrote: "So why oh why are you trying to muddy the waters by bringing up this issue? What ICGA found Vas in violation of has nothing to do with the GPL."
If copyright was not considered, what was the point of statement index 1.2 in the "Rybka Investigation and Summary of Findings for the ICGA" document?
PeterG
If copyright was not considered, what was the point of statement index 1.2 in the "Rybka Investigation and Summary of Findings for the ICGA" document?
PeterG
>If copyright was not considered, what was the point of statement index 1.2 in the "Rybka Investigation and Summary of Findings for the ICGA" document?
Hi Peter,
I hope you are sincere in your question, because I hate wasting time otherwise.
§ 1.2 is "Allegations"
"Allegations point out that by distributing Rybka, if it is based on Fruit, this GNU license was violated"
"If versions of Rybka are derived from Fruit and participated in ICGA tournaments, then Rybka has also violated ICGA Tournament Rules."
Have you ever heard of a "per se" law? A "per se" law is kind of like an IF THEN statement. Take DUI for example.
With a "typical" DUI the prosecutor will have to demonstrate to the court "impairment". What is that? I dunno you tell me. Ok well there are a number of "tools" a police officer will use to determine impairment:
"Individual crossed centerline 3 times into oncoming traffic, failed to obey stop sign at "such and such" intersection. After stopping individual and upon approaching individual's car, officer detected the odor of an alcoholic beverage. Individual's breath had an odor of an alcoholic beverage. Individual demonstrated the following physical indications (slurred speech... blah blah blah). Individual unable to count backwards from 10 (10, 9, 4,3,1). Individual stumbled out of vehicle and fell to pavement upon exiting vehicle. Individual asked to perform three Field Sobriety tests with the following results (blah blah blah) Officer performed HGN test (horizontal gaze nystagmus) and observed an angle of onset of 35° ("the eyes don't lie"). Based on above individual offered and accepted to take breathalyzer test. Breathalyzer test indicated a BAC of such and such percent"
Should be plenty to demonstrate impairment and be convicted of DUI Class A misdemeanor.
phew!
With a DUI per se, so much simpler. Law in many states is 0.08% max BAC. You hit the magic 8 and you have violated the DUI per se law, a class C misdemeanor.
If BAC ≥ 0.08%
Then Conviction = Yes.
Simple
(why the two? Cause you will be charged with both. One reason prosecutor might decide to plead you out... if you confess to the per se C Misdemeanor, he drops the more serious A Misdemeanor against you... that is just one reason)
Ok Peter you understand now?
Allegation was violating the GNU license...
That is an "easy" per se violation. That is,
IF the GNU license has been violated (and Rybka participated in ICGA tournaments)
Then Rybka violated ICGA Tournament Rules
Period... end of story.
However... not end of story, since no court determination the GNU License was violated.
Therefore ICGA can "fuhgettaboutit" or they can act on the Original Allegation in § 1.2, and have a peer review investigation (http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=391384&t=37762)
Just because they don't have a "per se" violation, that doesn't mean they cannot investigate this.
Hi Rob,
Thank you for taking the time to reply.
If it helps with Driving Under the Influence issue ...
"With a "typical" DUI the prosecutor will have to demonstrate to the court impairment. What is that? I dunno you tell me."
This means the prosecution have to show that the person's ability to drive safely has been adversely affected by the influence of alcohol consumed. The sobriety test example you have given is a good one. That is based on the principle that different people are able to tolerate different levels of alcohol before becoming adversely influenced. "DUI per se" disregards the need for the sobriety test and uses the "per se" that is that the act of having a higher than permitted body alcohol content is sufficient in its own right to get a conviction.
I mainly stopped responding to posts against my original because many were under the impression I was fighting Rybka's corner. I hope you understand that my gripe was with the way the ICGA handled this. It was sufficient to publish the letter of complaint and PUBLICLY go no further than give their decision. If the ICGA had announced their decision at this time was based on the fact that no defence against the accusation had been offered and therefore the claim was upheld "not contended", it would have obviated the need to publish any evidence. This would have placed the onus on and left the door open for Vasik Radjich to defend himself. They could have stated a period of six months after which defence would not be heard and that would have closed the door on the matter unless it was contended.
The evidence itself has been contended and based on copyright case history I strongly doubt that the claim of copyright on all of the source code would be upheld. Certainly proper process has not been followed.
Publishing the evidence, whether accurate or not, together with stating their intention to vilify Vasik Radjich and the ensuing media attention have poisoned any possibility of a future fair hearing so now the ICGA are seen as hostile. Having seen the way they have acted, if I were a commercial chess engine author I would not entertain entering a competition run by them. Also their actions could well have compromised any chance of legal action.
In my original post on this matter, on reflection, it may have been wiser to have worded it "Why the ICGA decision is flawed" although my opinion has not really changed since then. Once evidence is made public people will try to pull it to pieces even if only to test its robustness. No less than a defence lawyer would do.
The other problem the ICGA have is that Robert Hyatt was one of the inquiry panel members and given his postings on the subject then most will see that as coming from the ICGA that is unlikely to help their public image. I must admit I used to hold him in high esteem regarding computer chess matters but now reading those postings leaves an unsavoury taste in the mouth. A pity he did not take a more reserved approach in line with the complainant programmers.
Regards,
Peter
Thank you for taking the time to reply.
If it helps with Driving Under the Influence issue ...
"With a "typical" DUI the prosecutor will have to demonstrate to the court impairment. What is that? I dunno you tell me."
This means the prosecution have to show that the person's ability to drive safely has been adversely affected by the influence of alcohol consumed. The sobriety test example you have given is a good one. That is based on the principle that different people are able to tolerate different levels of alcohol before becoming adversely influenced. "DUI per se" disregards the need for the sobriety test and uses the "per se" that is that the act of having a higher than permitted body alcohol content is sufficient in its own right to get a conviction.
I mainly stopped responding to posts against my original because many were under the impression I was fighting Rybka's corner. I hope you understand that my gripe was with the way the ICGA handled this. It was sufficient to publish the letter of complaint and PUBLICLY go no further than give their decision. If the ICGA had announced their decision at this time was based on the fact that no defence against the accusation had been offered and therefore the claim was upheld "not contended", it would have obviated the need to publish any evidence. This would have placed the onus on and left the door open for Vasik Radjich to defend himself. They could have stated a period of six months after which defence would not be heard and that would have closed the door on the matter unless it was contended.
The evidence itself has been contended and based on copyright case history I strongly doubt that the claim of copyright on all of the source code would be upheld. Certainly proper process has not been followed.
Publishing the evidence, whether accurate or not, together with stating their intention to vilify Vasik Radjich and the ensuing media attention have poisoned any possibility of a future fair hearing so now the ICGA are seen as hostile. Having seen the way they have acted, if I were a commercial chess engine author I would not entertain entering a competition run by them. Also their actions could well have compromised any chance of legal action.
In my original post on this matter, on reflection, it may have been wiser to have worded it "Why the ICGA decision is flawed" although my opinion has not really changed since then. Once evidence is made public people will try to pull it to pieces even if only to test its robustness. No less than a defence lawyer would do.
The other problem the ICGA have is that Robert Hyatt was one of the inquiry panel members and given his postings on the subject then most will see that as coming from the ICGA that is unlikely to help their public image. I must admit I used to hold him in high esteem regarding computer chess matters but now reading those postings leaves an unsavoury taste in the mouth. A pity he did not take a more reserved approach in line with the complainant programmers.
Regards,
Peter
Hi Peter,
Same same.
Yes thanks... I was being rhetorical, just using that wording as a way of introducing how a police officer might go about determining what impairment "is".
I have filed my share of DUI charging affidavits for both charges. :-)
Well... I certainly do now... ok then "cool".
But why?
Why should Vas be treated different than any other author?
Why should I not be aware? Should I continue to be duped?
ICGA should set itself for up for some sort of charge of a conspiracy or cover up? Just look at the ruckus here with the evidence presented.
This wasn't true... a "defense" had been offered... do you not remember Vas saying:
“all of the Rybka versions are original, in the sense that I always wrote the source code myself (with the standard exceptions like various low-level snippets, magic numbers, etc).”
So to say the "claim was upheld (was) 'not contended'" would plain not be factual.
Vas had further opportunity to "defend" or refute the evidence provided ICGA other than the way he did.
Why? Why drag it out another six months? A serious allegation had been made by 14 chess engine programmers (some non-WCCC participants). So while ICGA sits on its thumbs, Rybka is allowed to compete in the 2011 WCCC?
It has?
Assume that is true... what bearing does that have on ICGA's decision?
According to whom? What part of the process was flawed?
Can you show me where this intention is please?
Edit: Now if you said, "together with stating their intention to vilify 'cheaters'"... I would be closer to acknowledging what you said (I would change the word vilify to expose). The media and us... do the vilifying.
you mean for Rybka? And seen hostile by who? Is this how you felt last year with the lifetime ban on Squarknll and its author FIDE Master Johnadry Espin?
How did you come to this conclusion? What would FSF care what a games committee did... unless they want to use whatever the ICGA investigation revealed to use as springboard for their own civil suit?
Can you find one post that demonstrates this?
You mean the posts attacking him for obscene & vile things like "latent homosexuality"... it's crap like that, that should leave that "unsavoury taste" in your the mouth.
Regards,
Rob
Edit:
Everything you said Peter seems to reflect an attitude that Vas should be treated differently, and in a sense he was. Look at the size and scope of the investigation. Nothing like this the last 5 years... Unprecedented?
ICGA didn't just take the word of those original 14 and say, "Well, if they are all in agreement, Vas must have violated the Fruit license (hence the "original work" rule)." No... they more than doubled the size of the investigative panel that spent months researching answering "anyone's" question to their satisfaction. No one disagreed with the findings.
Anyway... who in their right mind would want their No. 1 competitor kicked out? That is not a good thing. I do not want to delve into the logic of this as there are a number of things I can think of why this would not be a good thing. How does this help ICGA? (except in the area of enforcement)
But by determining if someone cheated, it puts everyone on notice, "does not matter who you are or how good you are, you violate the rules, you are out. Period." That I see as a tremendous positive.
Before I was with Team Hiarcs, it was fun to watch and root for Vas. Exciting to see him hammer everyone else. As part of Team Hiarcs, when we got beat it was the ol' "grrrrr" just like one does in any game competition... and a looking forward to competing again. Never once did I hear anything like... "we need to come up with something to get Vas booted." NEVER. Had I smelled the slightest whiff of something like that I would have left. And I have been privy to quite a bit of communication with Mark & Harvey.
You wanna know what I heard? Mainly it was Mark trying to encourage us saying he was continuing to work hard and was not about to give up. Just like one would expect from a respectable competitor. "I'm doing my best... thanks for your work testing..."
And what do you get from Rybka's Team? Arrogant, self-serving and immature boasting. Btw, I do not mean "everyone"... there are some I can think of that are very honorable... Hans. Nick too. I do not know Jiri. But a lot of disappointing behaviour from others.
Same same.
>>"With a "typical" DUI the prosecutor will have to demonstrate to the court impairment. What is that? I dunno you tell me."
>This means the prosecution have to show that
Yes thanks... I was being rhetorical, just using that wording as a way of introducing how a police officer might go about determining what impairment "is".
I have filed my share of DUI charging affidavits for both charges. :-)
>I hope you understand that my gripe was with the way the ICGA handled this
Well... I certainly do now... ok then "cool".
>It was sufficient to publish the letter of complaint and PUBLICLY go no further than give their decision
But why?
Why should Vas be treated different than any other author?
Why should I not be aware? Should I continue to be duped?
ICGA should set itself for up for some sort of charge of a conspiracy or cover up? Just look at the ruckus here with the evidence presented.
>If the ICGA had announced their decision at this time was based on the fact that no defence against the accusation had been offered
This wasn't true... a "defense" had been offered... do you not remember Vas saying:
“all of the Rybka versions are original, in the sense that I always wrote the source code myself (with the standard exceptions like various low-level snippets, magic numbers, etc).”
So to say the "claim was upheld (was) 'not contended'" would plain not be factual.
Vas had further opportunity to "defend" or refute the evidence provided ICGA other than the way he did.
>They could have stated a period of six months after which defence would not be heard and that would have closed the door on the matter unless it was contended.
Why? Why drag it out another six months? A serious allegation had been made by 14 chess engine programmers (some non-WCCC participants). So while ICGA sits on its thumbs, Rybka is allowed to compete in the 2011 WCCC?
>The evidence itself has been contended and based on copyright case history
It has?
>I strongly doubt that the claim of copyright on all of the source code would be upheld
Assume that is true... what bearing does that have on ICGA's decision?
>Certainly proper process has not been followed.
According to whom? What part of the process was flawed?
>together with stating their intention to vilify Vasik Radjich
Can you show me where this intention is please?
Edit: Now if you said, "together with stating their intention to vilify 'cheaters'"... I would be closer to acknowledging what you said (I would change the word vilify to expose). The media and us... do the vilifying.
>the ensuing media attention have poisoned any possibility of a future fair hearing so now the ICGA are seen as hostile
you mean for Rybka? And seen hostile by who? Is this how you felt last year with the lifetime ban on Squarknll and its author FIDE Master Johnadry Espin?
>Also their actions could well have compromised any chance of legal action.
How did you come to this conclusion? What would FSF care what a games committee did... unless they want to use whatever the ICGA investigation revealed to use as springboard for their own civil suit?
>Robert Hyatt was one of the inquiry panel members and given his postings on the subject then most will see that as coming from the ICGA that is unlikely to help their public image.
Can you find one post that demonstrates this?
>but now reading those postings leaves an unsavoury taste in the mouth.
You mean the posts attacking him for obscene & vile things like "latent homosexuality"... it's crap like that, that should leave that "unsavoury taste" in your the mouth.
Regards,
Rob
Edit:
Everything you said Peter seems to reflect an attitude that Vas should be treated differently, and in a sense he was. Look at the size and scope of the investigation. Nothing like this the last 5 years... Unprecedented?
ICGA didn't just take the word of those original 14 and say, "Well, if they are all in agreement, Vas must have violated the Fruit license (hence the "original work" rule)." No... they more than doubled the size of the investigative panel that spent months researching answering "anyone's" question to their satisfaction. No one disagreed with the findings.
Anyway... who in their right mind would want their No. 1 competitor kicked out? That is not a good thing. I do not want to delve into the logic of this as there are a number of things I can think of why this would not be a good thing. How does this help ICGA? (except in the area of enforcement)
But by determining if someone cheated, it puts everyone on notice, "does not matter who you are or how good you are, you violate the rules, you are out. Period." That I see as a tremendous positive.
Before I was with Team Hiarcs, it was fun to watch and root for Vas. Exciting to see him hammer everyone else. As part of Team Hiarcs, when we got beat it was the ol' "grrrrr" just like one does in any game competition... and a looking forward to competing again. Never once did I hear anything like... "we need to come up with something to get Vas booted." NEVER. Had I smelled the slightest whiff of something like that I would have left. And I have been privy to quite a bit of communication with Mark & Harvey.
You wanna know what I heard? Mainly it was Mark trying to encourage us saying he was continuing to work hard and was not about to give up. Just like one would expect from a respectable competitor. "I'm doing my best... thanks for your work testing..."
And what do you get from Rybka's Team? Arrogant, self-serving and immature boasting. Btw, I do not mean "everyone"... there are some I can think of that are very honorable... Hans. Nick too. I do not know Jiri. But a lot of disappointing behaviour from others.
Hi Rob,
I suspect on some of these issues our views are diametrically opposed and no matter how much we debate it would make no difference, however I believe the issue of copyright is important and the citation in 1.2 of the ICGA panel findings emphasises the panel did too.
For me it is straight forward. Based on the widely held principle that the accused is innocent until proven guilty then it is the claimant's responsibility to show firstly their work is actually copyright and then where in the accused work that copyright protection has been breached. If the claimant is unable to do so then no copyright issues exist and in that instance Rule #2 of the ICGA has no bearing on this matter because there is no one to acknowledge as having made a contribution to the accused's work. You believe sufficient similarity has been shown, I have seen nothing to persuade me it has.
The probability that pre 1.0beta versions of Rybka and Crafty were copies of Crafty have no bearing on whether Rybka was a copy of Fruit that was the original complaint. The only reference to earlier versions of Rybka in the letter of complaint was to show a large jump in Elo performance between the two versions. That was true but unfortunately the reference was made to the Elo of the 64 bit version that gained significantly because of no other reason than speed up when the lower Elo of the 32 bit version was relevant given that Fruit 2.1 was 32 bit and not 64 bit. A case of exaggeration to make a point. The post complaint introduction of the earlier Rybka version and Crafty similarity can only be seen as an attempt to sway or influence the decision of the Rybka 1.0 beta version and Fruit 2.1 comparison and should have been declared inadmissible although it could be taken into account to determine the severity of the ICGA actions. Presumably if no association with Fruit had been declared any action would have been less severe based on the earlier Rybka version performing worse than Crafty.
Although my gripe is with the way the ICGA has handled this, references to Rybka are inevitable just as are references to Fruit and Crafty. I have made no plea for special treatment for Rybka. Therefore I do not "plea for Rybka" in any sense or way. Cannot say I've heard of Squarknll or its author.
Announcing their decision for the complainants together with their actions in the absence of defence or mitigation was absolutely right because it threw the onus and blame onto Vasik Radjich without offering the evidence publicly that has subjected it to question that has caused the rumpus. By doing so the ICGA would have retained their respectability. The ban would still be in place. It didn't really matter whether the retrospective change in titles took place immediately or in six month's time. Given the seriousness of the complaint then I would not consider the brief statement by Vasik Radjich as a defence. OK six months; three months; whatever, it shows the ICGA offering a last chance to clear his name but if that is treated with contempt then the case is closed ad infinitum. The ICGA would have then been seen as the good guys. They didn't have to do that but it's all about PR and people's perception. I would be surprised if Vasik Radjich now considers the ICGA as anything but hostile as do many others.
As I read it, the ICGA intended to notify certain bodies and media with the intention of blowing this up and as a consequence this made international media coverage that has now made it difficult for a fair hearing if there was any attempt to take it to court. So now they are seen by many as the bad guys. Consequences then are lack of sponsors and competitions falling into the nonentity category. Little thought went into their consideration of the best approach to come out of it smelling of roses!
As far as proper process is concerned, ICGA rules state that "Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice" It seems that initial phase was circumvented because the reverse engineering had already taken place. I have my doubts on the original intentions of the reverse engineering but that is just my opinion.
I would never condone personal attacks on individuals and agree some of the postings should have been removed by the moderators. I suspect many of Robert Hyatt's postings are an outlet for his anger that earlier versions of Rybka took much of his Crafty code but the fact he was on the ICGA panel of investigation ties him in with the ICGA and therefore the association in many people's eyes is inevitable. Again it boils down to perceptions. Do not underestimate their value and strength. Governments get elected on it.
It seems to me that there is the supposition that everyone has to be for or against Rybka and the fact that I have no personal sway either way seems unimaginable to most.
After completing this and about to post I just read your edit. I think this could go on ad infinitum so all I will add is ...
I have never doubted the integrity of the HIARCS team. I have purchased HIARCS products for some time and intend continuing to do so because they are good value for money and of course they are British. My patriotism knows no bounds ... but please do not ask my thoughts on the current or previous government!
Although it would be great to see HIARCS up there wiping the floor with all and sundry I'm not sure that would be consistent with the long established aim of producing an AI chess engine playing strong human like chess. Based on knowledge rather than fast search, at least HIARCS has a "plot" and no doubt it would be considered a literary work. The fact that these other chess engines without defined aim may be little more than sophisticated calculators makes the sense of them being literary works harder to accept. I'm sure the value of Gary Kasparov and now Vishy Anand endorsing HIARCS has been missed by many. I sometimes wonder if too much emphasis is placed on Elo and the better learning tool may not necessarily be the top Elo engine. However, that's another post somewhere else or maybe a topic in Selective Search.
My 4 PC's, 2 matching pairs, may not be up to Harvey's standards but they are always available for testing.
Regards,
Peter
I suspect on some of these issues our views are diametrically opposed and no matter how much we debate it would make no difference, however I believe the issue of copyright is important and the citation in 1.2 of the ICGA panel findings emphasises the panel did too.
For me it is straight forward. Based on the widely held principle that the accused is innocent until proven guilty then it is the claimant's responsibility to show firstly their work is actually copyright and then where in the accused work that copyright protection has been breached. If the claimant is unable to do so then no copyright issues exist and in that instance Rule #2 of the ICGA has no bearing on this matter because there is no one to acknowledge as having made a contribution to the accused's work. You believe sufficient similarity has been shown, I have seen nothing to persuade me it has.
The probability that pre 1.0beta versions of Rybka and Crafty were copies of Crafty have no bearing on whether Rybka was a copy of Fruit that was the original complaint. The only reference to earlier versions of Rybka in the letter of complaint was to show a large jump in Elo performance between the two versions. That was true but unfortunately the reference was made to the Elo of the 64 bit version that gained significantly because of no other reason than speed up when the lower Elo of the 32 bit version was relevant given that Fruit 2.1 was 32 bit and not 64 bit. A case of exaggeration to make a point. The post complaint introduction of the earlier Rybka version and Crafty similarity can only be seen as an attempt to sway or influence the decision of the Rybka 1.0 beta version and Fruit 2.1 comparison and should have been declared inadmissible although it could be taken into account to determine the severity of the ICGA actions. Presumably if no association with Fruit had been declared any action would have been less severe based on the earlier Rybka version performing worse than Crafty.
Although my gripe is with the way the ICGA has handled this, references to Rybka are inevitable just as are references to Fruit and Crafty. I have made no plea for special treatment for Rybka. Therefore I do not "plea for Rybka" in any sense or way. Cannot say I've heard of Squarknll or its author.
Announcing their decision for the complainants together with their actions in the absence of defence or mitigation was absolutely right because it threw the onus and blame onto Vasik Radjich without offering the evidence publicly that has subjected it to question that has caused the rumpus. By doing so the ICGA would have retained their respectability. The ban would still be in place. It didn't really matter whether the retrospective change in titles took place immediately or in six month's time. Given the seriousness of the complaint then I would not consider the brief statement by Vasik Radjich as a defence. OK six months; three months; whatever, it shows the ICGA offering a last chance to clear his name but if that is treated with contempt then the case is closed ad infinitum. The ICGA would have then been seen as the good guys. They didn't have to do that but it's all about PR and people's perception. I would be surprised if Vasik Radjich now considers the ICGA as anything but hostile as do many others.
As I read it, the ICGA intended to notify certain bodies and media with the intention of blowing this up and as a consequence this made international media coverage that has now made it difficult for a fair hearing if there was any attempt to take it to court. So now they are seen by many as the bad guys. Consequences then are lack of sponsors and competitions falling into the nonentity category. Little thought went into their consideration of the best approach to come out of it smelling of roses!
As far as proper process is concerned, ICGA rules state that "Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice" It seems that initial phase was circumvented because the reverse engineering had already taken place. I have my doubts on the original intentions of the reverse engineering but that is just my opinion.
I would never condone personal attacks on individuals and agree some of the postings should have been removed by the moderators. I suspect many of Robert Hyatt's postings are an outlet for his anger that earlier versions of Rybka took much of his Crafty code but the fact he was on the ICGA panel of investigation ties him in with the ICGA and therefore the association in many people's eyes is inevitable. Again it boils down to perceptions. Do not underestimate their value and strength. Governments get elected on it.
It seems to me that there is the supposition that everyone has to be for or against Rybka and the fact that I have no personal sway either way seems unimaginable to most.
After completing this and about to post I just read your edit. I think this could go on ad infinitum so all I will add is ...
I have never doubted the integrity of the HIARCS team. I have purchased HIARCS products for some time and intend continuing to do so because they are good value for money and of course they are British. My patriotism knows no bounds ... but please do not ask my thoughts on the current or previous government!
Although it would be great to see HIARCS up there wiping the floor with all and sundry I'm not sure that would be consistent with the long established aim of producing an AI chess engine playing strong human like chess. Based on knowledge rather than fast search, at least HIARCS has a "plot" and no doubt it would be considered a literary work. The fact that these other chess engines without defined aim may be little more than sophisticated calculators makes the sense of them being literary works harder to accept. I'm sure the value of Gary Kasparov and now Vishy Anand endorsing HIARCS has been missed by many. I sometimes wonder if too much emphasis is placed on Elo and the better learning tool may not necessarily be the top Elo engine. However, that's another post somewhere else or maybe a topic in Selective Search.
My 4 PC's, 2 matching pairs, may not be up to Harvey's standards but they are always available for testing.
Regards,
Peter
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
> what is so hard to understand about breaking a rule that you signed by your own hand you would obey?
But the ICGA didn't only declare "Vas broke the specific ICGA rules".
The ICGA shouted: "Vasik Rajlich is guilty of plagiarizing the programs Crafty and Fruit"
In my ears this sound a significant bit more bright!
Quap
What they could do @ the World Championships is this:
1. 'Black-Box' loading and reading the code so that the programmer does not have to reveal their code to anybody. There is paranoia from having a large time investment vs. the matter of being able to, to other programmers, in a short time lose "ideas"!
2. make multiple text 'Finds' from multiple sources of GPL open-source code and whoever else might have a grievance to search the code of the UCI to be entered into the competition.
a. if their is a hit (ie. the text search finds a section of code which was entered as been having thought was important and that should be checked), then the programmer would have to 1. attack the search correspondence as unimportant. or 2. submit to a human check upon the code and pass that. OR that that uci is disqualified from competition.
b. if their is not a hit, then that uci can compete.
3. compile the code on site from what has been entered and scanned AND that that is the program that competes for the World Championship.
4. expunge the copy of the source code for that uci from the computer used for making the check OR keep them on file at some private library, law firm, "code bank" or something else to be and remain independent.
Perhaps in the future there will be some Chess Position Analysis Service (like cluster Rybka, but for many thousands of gamers playing perhaps a myriad of games) where a lifetime subscription could be bought where you "sign-in" and the computer internet chats with you about a position remotely on your software on your computer/RemoteComputerDevice.....which would play at that strength you bought for life.....until you get another newer one that plays at a higher strength.....and so on, version after version: but over the internet--not (necessarily) CD/DVD/BR/etc.. And you could request a gameset between the two, three,... levels that you've already purchased that has already been played or request a customized gameset with a given book, etc.
People say they would like their own "physical" copy, but this would be much more secure for the UCI programmers and people will buy it anyway if it is ranked #1.
1. 'Black-Box' loading and reading the code so that the programmer does not have to reveal their code to anybody. There is paranoia from having a large time investment vs. the matter of being able to, to other programmers, in a short time lose "ideas"!
2. make multiple text 'Finds' from multiple sources of GPL open-source code and whoever else might have a grievance to search the code of the UCI to be entered into the competition.
a. if their is a hit (ie. the text search finds a section of code which was entered as been having thought was important and that should be checked), then the programmer would have to 1. attack the search correspondence as unimportant. or 2. submit to a human check upon the code and pass that. OR that that uci is disqualified from competition.
b. if their is not a hit, then that uci can compete.
3. compile the code on site from what has been entered and scanned AND that that is the program that competes for the World Championship.
4. expunge the copy of the source code for that uci from the computer used for making the check OR keep them on file at some private library, law firm, "code bank" or something else to be and remain independent.
Perhaps in the future there will be some Chess Position Analysis Service (like cluster Rybka, but for many thousands of gamers playing perhaps a myriad of games) where a lifetime subscription could be bought where you "sign-in" and the computer internet chats with you about a position remotely on your software on your computer/RemoteComputerDevice.....which would play at that strength you bought for life.....until you get another newer one that plays at a higher strength.....and so on, version after version: but over the internet--not (necessarily) CD/DVD/BR/etc.. And you could request a gameset between the two, three,... levels that you've already purchased that has already been played or request a customized gameset with a given book, etc.
People say they would like their own "physical" copy, but this would be much more secure for the UCI programmers and people will buy it anyway if it is ranked #1.
OR Mehtod #2: at the World Championships, ICGA could just let the competition occur and have anomalys in the results checked by the committee--to have their source code searched on by committee as they have been doing now, but starting with the 'black-box' method. You would first get a "Preliminary Winner". Then, within eg. two weeks after the competition, after their committee has analysed and voted, the ICGA could announce their "Official Winner!" of the World Championships.
> . Well guess what ... the GPL is a license and it is not a contract! So even if Vas DID violate GPL (something that has to be proven in court) the only thing that would be required would be for the judge to ask Vas to remove or change any infringing code. He WOULD NOT have to open his code and the only real punishment would be is that if the judge has decided he has infringed and ordered him to change the infringing code and he did not comply.
Cannot court award damages in this case as stated in the comments below article?
"
For information on remedies for infringement, see 17 U.S.C. 504.
The plaintiff may choose whether to request actual damages or statutory damages. The amount of statutory damages awarded are left to the discretion of the court, and range from $750 to $30,000 per infringement (i.e., per copy distributed in violation of the license), or up to $150,000 if the court finds that the infringement was willful.
In the past, in order to be eligible to be awarded statutory damages for copyright infringement of a work, it was necessary for the copyright on the work to have been registered either prior to the infringement, or within the three month grace period following first publication. It appears that this requirement may have been lifted.
In addition, the court may allow recovery of attorney's fees. "With minimum $750 per infringement it might be better to comply with GPL.
>> He WOULD NOT have to open his code.
Actually, you couldn't be more wrong
If the FSF took him to court, he would DEFINITELY have to release ALL source code. That's exactly the point of the GPL. It's too late to change his code, as he's already released Rybka 1, 2, 3 etc..
He'd have to release complete source code for all released versions of Rybka.
To be clear. I have no idea is the allegations are true. But if they are, the GPL is very, very clear. You MUST release your code.
With regards to the ICGA, they can do what they want with their participants and with their awards. But what they cannot do is defame someone. They have publicly accused Vas of "cheating" using code that did not even participate in their tournament. Again according to the people I have spoken to, that leaves them open for a major lawsuit. The correct way to have proceeded is to have requested from the FSF to open proceedings regarding GPL violations in court of law where Vas would have a chance to defend himself. Only if and when FSF gets a ruling from a judge, ICGA could use that ruling as leverage to disqualify someone claiming that there is a good chance that some of the code "might" have still made it to the version that participated. But that would also be a stretch and could probably be challenged ... ICGA did not having a proper setup to keep copies of participating code, and they have to live with that and change their requirements for future competitions. As it is, things are working in the opposite. ICGA makes a ruling based on code that did not participate in the competition, and then actively decides to send its ruling to all the media as a final authoritative verdict on the outcome, and sends its data to FSF. That is just wrong on so many levels as ICGA are not equipped or are not legally authorized to be judge and jury in a GPL infringement case.
With regards to Vas having to release his code IF there was a violation of GPL code in Rybka 1.0 beta ... he certainly does not have to as it was given out freely. But that is not the point, the point is that FSF has not claimed there was a GPL violation, and it is up to them to follow it up if they see something they don't like and not ICGA. Again, even lawyers disagree on what constitutes a GPL violation, and while I have a lot of respect for Bob and some of the others that have claimed there was a GPL violation, I think they would be surprised to find that in a court of law their "evidence" that there was "cheating" or "stealing" would not hold water.
With regards to Vas having to release his code IF there was a violation of GPL code in Rybka 1.0 beta ... he certainly does not have to as it was given out freely. But that is not the point, the point is that FSF has not claimed there was a GPL violation, and it is up to them to follow it up if they see something they don't like and not ICGA. Again, even lawyers disagree on what constitutes a GPL violation, and while I have a lot of respect for Bob and some of the others that have claimed there was a GPL violation, I think they would be surprised to find that in a court of law their "evidence" that there was "cheating" or "stealing" would not hold water.
>With regards to Vas having to release his code IF there was a violation of GPL code in Rybka 1.0 beta ... he certainly does not have to as it was given out freely.
It's completely irrelevant whether he's selling the code. By releasing it, he would be REQUIRED to release source code (along with a copy of the GPL license).
Please read about the GPLv2 before commenting on it further
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
Go back to the beginning--the GPL can say whatever it wants, but it is not enforceable legally.
Boy, there is a statement for the times. I suppose the previous GPL court cases were just a figament of someone's imagination, correct? :)
These discussions do stray far from reality on occasions such as this. The GPL was written by a group of lawyers, and it _has_ been tested in court.
These discussions do stray far from reality on occasions such as this. The GPL was written by a group of lawyers, and it _has_ been tested in court.
There is no evidence that Rybka has violated GPL. None whatsoever.
Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Support / My 2 cents on the Rybka - Fruit GPL violation (if any)
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill