Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Support / My 2 cents on the Rybka - Fruit GPL violation (if any)
Bob, what you have to say on this matter -doesn't matter. Only if and when pigs can fly!
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
Looks like the arguments are running out of substance, and now are solely personal.
> Looks like the arguments are running out of substance, and now are solely personal.
Oh! Look! Another Bob one liner -looks like the arguments are running out of substance alright.
Who started the one-liners? You are a _lousy_ debate participant...
talk about "pot, kettle".
talk about "pot, kettle".
"ever" is a long time.
You can't say computer chess programs existed prior to "the big bang" so there _were_ original programs at some point in time. And, for the record, there are original programs today. Just not all adhere to that high standard. They are free to compete wherever the rules allow such behavior. Just not in ICGA/CCT/ACCA/etc events where the rules specifically prohibit such.
You can't say computer chess programs existed prior to "the big bang" so there _were_ original programs at some point in time. And, for the record, there are original programs today. Just not all adhere to that high standard. They are free to compete wherever the rules allow such behavior. Just not in ICGA/CCT/ACCA/etc events where the rules specifically prohibit such.
> Because it is not original and contains parts of the program fruit.
> Now wasn't that simple???
Not a good enough answer - even if Picasso copied an idea from another artist - the painting as a body of work was still- picasso!
Bob, forget about trying to justfy this bullshit path you're on and have been on for quite sometime -you've been conning people with your hype about Vas for a long time now. You took full advantage of this side show and I have to wonder who was behind organizing it- if anything you certainly did high jack it for your own ends and use the ICGA as your backdrop- conning and using everyone for this sick trip of yours.
We are not talking about copying "ideas". We are talking about copying "source code". You keep trying to slip that in, when it is a false statement. Anyone can copy ideas. Everyone uses Shannon's minimax idea. Evereyone uses Newell/Simon/Shaw's alpha/beta pruning idea. Everyone uses Greenblatt's transposition/refutation idea. Etc. But we don't copy source code.
As far as your last paragraph goes, perhaps you need to seek professional help. There is no "own ends" other than to maintain the integrity of computer chess tournaments so that authors compete against each other equally. There is no conspiracy. But feel free to explain what I gain from this process...
As far as your last paragraph goes, perhaps you need to seek professional help. There is no "own ends" other than to maintain the integrity of computer chess tournaments so that authors compete against each other equally. There is no conspiracy. But feel free to explain what I gain from this process...
> We are not talking about copying "ideas". We are talking about copying "source code". You keep trying to slip that in, when it is a false statement. Anyone can copy ideas. Everyone uses Shannon's minimax idea. Evereyone uses Newell/Simon/Shaw's alpha/beta pruning idea. Everyone uses Greenblatt's transposition/refutation idea. Etc. But we don't copy source code.
>
> As far as your last paragraph goes, perhaps you need to seek professional help. There is no "own ends" other than to maintain the integrity of computer chess tournaments so that authors compete against each other equally. There is no conspiracy. But feel free to explain what I gain from this process...
Bob - I don't buy anything you may have to say on this issue. You have put your own spin on this from the get go. Time to let go, Bob!
Bob, you cannot even show a significant sentence out of the Rybka code that came from elsewhere and was forbidden to be taken like it is there. Not one. You never did and never will show up. Doesnt this disqualify you? I dont understand programming but I can understand if you offer me a chrismas turkey or a piece of code that sets Vas check mate. How much money do you need until you give it a try? NB significant sentence, not 4 numbers.
Look, I leave enough room for your example:
you have something? I knew that wouldnt happen. To be fair, let's concentrate on R3 and R4. Ok?
Look, I leave enough room for your example:
you have something? I knew that wouldnt happen. To be fair, let's concentrate on R3 and R4. Ok?
If you look at the time management code in Zach's or Mark's report, that is enough. It is code that was clearly copied. If you look at Rybka 1.6.1 and believe your statement is true, then conversation is truly hopeless, as the entire thing was copied and that was proven beyond any doubt whatsoever. You can't lay bitboard and mailbox code side-by-side, because they are different when you just look at character by character. They have to be. Just translate a good book from English to Spanish, and then compare. Count characters. Count words. Compare strings. Nothing will match. But the Spanish translation _is_ a copy. If you don't get that, you don't get it. In your case, you don't get it, and you don't even know you don't get it, because you are just parroting nonsense that a couple of others have written.
Try having an original thought from time to time. It can be quite refreshing and exhilarating. But only if you actually try it. Lemmings are not the highest life-form on the planet.
Try having an original thought from time to time. It can be quite refreshing and exhilarating. But only if you actually try it. Lemmings are not the highest life-form on the planet.
You are aware that in the rules there is no mention of the code having to be "original". Did you know that Bob.
For the Triennial World Championship event all participants are required to bring source code of their program. This code must be made available to the Tournament Director (or designate) for scrutiny in case of dispute. The purpose here is to ensure that each program is unique and is owned by the representing programmer.
Just "Unique" Bob! Just, "Unique"! A great deal of things are unique without being original-BOB!
(how did you put that to me before-BOB!)
Oh! Yeah!
Is that simple enough for you???
For the Triennial World Championship event all participants are required to bring source code of their program. This code must be made available to the Tournament Director (or designate) for scrutiny in case of dispute. The purpose here is to ensure that each program is unique and is owned by the representing programmer.
Just "Unique" Bob! Just, "Unique"! A great deal of things are unique without being original-BOB!
(how did you put that to me before-BOB!)
Oh! Yeah!
Is that simple enough for you???
what year was that from? 1977. The rule has evolved over the years, as issues came up. This is the correct one, used for the last 5 years at least:
2. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their submission details. 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. For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director.
That was the 2007 version which is unchanged to today.
So don't drag up some 20+ year old version (the ICGA has not held "triennial WC tournaments" in at least 15 years, they have been every year for a long time now) and quote it as if it were the rule we are using today. Disingenuous. Look it up if you don't know what it means...
2. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their submission details. 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. For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director.
That was the 2007 version which is unchanged to today.
So don't drag up some 20+ year old version (the ICGA has not held "triennial WC tournaments" in at least 15 years, they have been every year for a long time now) and quote it as if it were the rule we are using today. Disingenuous. Look it up if you don't know what it means...
Bob, would you feel offended if I said that perhaps you represent the old paradigm just in the line of what you were telling here above? Every newcomer must follow your rules and he must start from scratch. Could you at least consider the possibility that with such a strict law many young talents must fail? But if talents will just fail because it takes them 3 or 5 years until they have done all the already known stuff? Ok if they invent nothing new, the wrongness in your law ist important. But for the sake of speedy talents wouldnt it be worth a try to become more tolerant? Taking from others isnt cheating, it just saves precious time. But then the newcomers might becom real new champions just what Vas became. And I know that you never counted out all his talents despite your anger for other reasons. Wouldnt Vas be exactly a goodd case for a new paradigm with new leaders in the ICGA tournament organizing?
Now you couldlaugh at it because it came from me but how about being really human and not to destroy every new idea by gross vocabulary? I am very convinced that such ideas must copme from outsiders like me because all experts already have their history and they cant just step out to see if a new idea could be accepted. But I can assure you that I have no own interests in a new organization, not that you begin to flame me personally. I got the idea because to me it looked like an automatism always when experts began to speak about rules and the forbidden character of copying and NOT beginning from scratch. The free dom to think against mainstreams is typical for psychologists because they know many clients with even more attitudes towards living etc. So that you by force come into a position of wide tolerance. And that favorss at first sight iuncommon arguments and ideas. Why not at least discuss such a new idea and not directly defamating it by the stamping as cheating?
Now you couldlaugh at it because it came from me but how about being really human and not to destroy every new idea by gross vocabulary? I am very convinced that such ideas must copme from outsiders like me because all experts already have their history and they cant just step out to see if a new idea could be accepted. But I can assure you that I have no own interests in a new organization, not that you begin to flame me personally. I got the idea because to me it looked like an automatism always when experts began to speak about rules and the forbidden character of copying and NOT beginning from scratch. The free dom to think against mainstreams is typical for psychologists because they know many clients with even more attitudes towards living etc. So that you by force come into a position of wide tolerance. And that favorss at first sight iuncommon arguments and ideas. Why not at least discuss such a new idea and not directly defamating it by the stamping as cheating?
Rolf, two key points:
(1) the rules are what they are. If enough programmers (keyword is programmers here since they do establish the rules for the ICGA tournaments) want to open things up and allow clones, derivatives and/or copied pieces of code, they can certainly do so. But I do not believe any of them are interested in seeing every family member of the Fruit/Rybka/ip*/Robo*/et. al. group in the same tournament. Some have already tried and been rejected. But if enough participants want that, it will happen.
(2) there is the issue of copyright law that the participants can't override. And even if one were to participate with a clone or derivative (not the same thing, by the way) they could still be in violation of copyright law..
Neither of those "things" is going to be easy to change/relax.
Note that the current rules are not "my" rules. They are "our" rules, as established by the ICGA and tournament participants over the years...
(1) the rules are what they are. If enough programmers (keyword is programmers here since they do establish the rules for the ICGA tournaments) want to open things up and allow clones, derivatives and/or copied pieces of code, they can certainly do so. But I do not believe any of them are interested in seeing every family member of the Fruit/Rybka/ip*/Robo*/et. al. group in the same tournament. Some have already tried and been rejected. But if enough participants want that, it will happen.
(2) there is the issue of copyright law that the participants can't override. And even if one were to participate with a clone or derivative (not the same thing, by the way) they could still be in violation of copyright law..
Neither of those "things" is going to be easy to change/relax.
Note that the current rules are not "my" rules. They are "our" rules, as established by the ICGA and tournament participants over the years...
The issue is not about who succeeds and who fails. It is about "who follows the rules?"
Anyone is free to organize an event, and if they want, allow people to enter even commercial engines (like the Rybka engine room among others.) But that is not what the _programmers_ want.
Anyone is free to organize an event, and if they want, allow people to enter even commercial engines (like the Rybka engine room among others.) But that is not what the _programmers_ want.
I got it, Rybka is too strong for them. What is with Houdini? With the Hippo family? What is with GNU Junior? Will you continue to ban all? I think that Vas will prefer FreeStyle. Better chess, better money. Team Work. Just Fun. Wanna join?
"Gnu junior" I do not know. There is already strong evidence showing similarities between robo and houdini, even if they are not identical. No one of the so-called "ip/robo" authors has tried to enter. And no one can enter a derivative of same without author's permission. So all seems sane in the CC/ICGA world, IMHO. I might well try freestyle one day. But I will try with an _original_ program I wrote. Doing anything else is just not satisfying. A monkey can copy code, but not write it. I like the challenge of actually writing code and then competing with what _I_ wrote. Win/lose/draw, it is _my_ result, produced with _my_ code. That's how I (and many others) like to compete.
By copying code you cant become World Champion for a period of 5 years.
You must have that genial talent, then you can do that.
And all the little boys ran to Mama Levy and cried but he must have copied something and daddy Bob came running and gave them their dream back, that without Rybka they could become Champions again. Like Amir Ban, Uniake and Meyer-Kahlen. It's so low. I fear I must puke out of contempt.I dont want to insult them, they just lack the necessary talent, but this witchhunt now goes way out of proportion.
But there is a mistake in the game.
People will buy Rybka because it's the best, not because it once was Champion in a ICGA - in what? In the ICGA led by a President.. Ahem. Never heard of.
They will buy the strongest thing from the strongest programmer alive. And now game is over with copying Rybka in return. Isnt it a pity, Bob?
There is a chance left for you. Call Vas over email and make a proposal, under what circumstances the best programmer alive will perhaps come back. What do they want to pay for such a nice gesture, Bob? You will miss Vasik more than anybody else because you know well, that he's somehow your successor. I could imagine that you could become President and then invite and beg Vas back. This will happen. The new Wch will be played out in a FreeStyle Tournament, with true money prizes which then will be reported in the media. It's over for impostering primadonnas of ICGA. Let's come back to sports. I know you will participate. you are a fighter, Bob. Make an end to these foolishnesses of this kind of piboys. Computerchess is for real men!
You must have that genial talent, then you can do that.
And all the little boys ran to Mama Levy and cried but he must have copied something and daddy Bob came running and gave them their dream back, that without Rybka they could become Champions again. Like Amir Ban, Uniake and Meyer-Kahlen. It's so low. I fear I must puke out of contempt.I dont want to insult them, they just lack the necessary talent, but this witchhunt now goes way out of proportion.
But there is a mistake in the game.
People will buy Rybka because it's the best, not because it once was Champion in a ICGA - in what? In the ICGA led by a President.. Ahem. Never heard of.
They will buy the strongest thing from the strongest programmer alive. And now game is over with copying Rybka in return. Isnt it a pity, Bob?
There is a chance left for you. Call Vas over email and make a proposal, under what circumstances the best programmer alive will perhaps come back. What do they want to pay for such a nice gesture, Bob? You will miss Vasik more than anybody else because you know well, that he's somehow your successor. I could imagine that you could become President and then invite and beg Vas back. This will happen. The new Wch will be played out in a FreeStyle Tournament, with true money prizes which then will be reported in the media. It's over for impostering primadonnas of ICGA. Let's come back to sports. I know you will participate. you are a fighter, Bob. Make an end to these foolishnesses of this kind of piboys. Computerchess is for real men!
Change your statement. By copying the code written by others, you might become a world champion in 5 years, rather than the 10 or 15 years it might take you normally.
That's the problem everyone has with this, as I have explained previously. Shaving off 5-10 years is a _lot_ of time saved. Much like taking a taxi ride in the middle of a marathon. Easy to set a new world record for time-to-completion when you take an illegal short-cut.
That's the problem everyone has with this, as I have explained previously. Shaving off 5-10 years is a _lot_ of time saved. Much like taking a taxi ride in the middle of a marathon. Easy to set a new world record for time-to-completion when you take an illegal short-cut.
I'm not going to beg anyone to do anything. If Vas wants to compete in ICGA tournaments, he is going to have to appeal to the ICGA and offer evidence that his current program is completely original with no copied code inside, although I do not think anyone will have a problem with the EGTB code if he has permission, and the Magic stuff from Pradu since he has made that public for all to use...
If he asks, he would certainly be heard. I would not want to bet on the outcome, but he would be heard. I know how I would vote, if asked, assuming he proved that the program was clean by having someone like Ken Thompson or Dave Slate look at his code (with or without NDA doesn't matter to me) and verify that it is clean. But until he wants to become involved, there is no point in discussing it further.
If he asks, he would certainly be heard. I would not want to bet on the outcome, but he would be heard. I know how I would vote, if asked, assuming he proved that the program was clean by having someone like Ken Thompson or Dave Slate look at his code (with or without NDA doesn't matter to me) and verify that it is clean. But until he wants to become involved, there is no point in discussing it further.
If the structures are commonly used and if you duplicate the arrays in some form, you _must_ duplicate the code that uses them for the data to be useful (and I don't necessarily buy into the latter), your copyright comes into question. Software copyright is explicitly tied to protecting innovative expression and explicitly prohibited from becoming a barrier to entry.
"Ideas, Methods, or Systems cannot be copyrighted. Copyright protection is not available for: ideas or procedures for doing, making, or building things; scientific or technical methods or discoveries; business operations or procedures; mathematical principles; formulas; or any other sort of concept, process, or method of operation."
Copyright Office, Ideas, Methods, or Systems, Circular R31 (1985)
The evaluation function in chess is just that, a function which can be expressed as a formula. Chess engines generally implement this function as a sum of weighted features, but the same result can be obtained with other representations. In a very weak sense, it can be considered adaptive, with the weights changing based on game phase. The underlying function itself is not subject to copyright, so with a different software realization, you could have a mathematically identical evaluation function with no infringement.
One method of changing the representation without changing the underlying function is to use covariance techniques to remove correlation between features. This results in a formula which looks very different, where the features no longer have intuitive meaning (a disadvantage), but with the advantage that individual feature weights can be optimized with minimal side effects (there would be no side effects if the function were linear, but features like bishop pair and other multiple-feature dependencies come into play). With a nonlinear system, the features can be decorrelated, but remain dependent.
Copyright Office, Ideas, Methods, or Systems, Circular R31 (1985)
The evaluation function in chess is just that, a function which can be expressed as a formula. Chess engines generally implement this function as a sum of weighted features, but the same result can be obtained with other representations. In a very weak sense, it can be considered adaptive, with the weights changing based on game phase. The underlying function itself is not subject to copyright, so with a different software realization, you could have a mathematically identical evaluation function with no infringement.
One method of changing the representation without changing the underlying function is to use covariance techniques to remove correlation between features. This results in a formula which looks very different, where the features no longer have intuitive meaning (a disadvantage), but with the advantage that individual feature weights can be optimized with minimal side effects (there would be no side effects if the function were linear, but features like bishop pair and other multiple-feature dependencies come into play). With a nonlinear system, the features can be decorrelated, but remain dependent.
The time management code in the UCI parser, while not part of the chess-playing part of the program, should be subject to copyright, I would think. Vas copied this almost verbatim (the only thing presented that I can see was, without a doubt, definitely copied without really any translation to speak of).
I wouldn't be surprised if this were indeed the case. Fruit had a very simple time management system as I recall, maybe about ten lines of code. I seem to recall that it was in the same module as the UCI parser.
As far as being "chess playing" software, I would not be so quick to give Vas a pass on the time management software.
As far as being "chess playing" software, I would not be so quick to give Vas a pass on the time management software.
> As far as being "chess playing" software, I would not be so quick to give Vas a pass on the time management software.
So you cede that this could be a problem for him? I would guess not a major one, but certainly something that would require that he must either give in to some investigation or completely release his source(s) that use(s) this implementation.
Also, any comments on this post above, where I asked Bob for what he considered to be cases most similar to the current one in which GPL violations were found guilty in courts? There are a couple that seem fairly close to the present case: using open-source code in hardware or software without releasing the whole thing to the public.
From what I've seen, the time management code is the strongest evidence against Rybka 1, but it is a very small amount of code.
If you look at GPL precedents, it is evident that FSF's goals are not in obtaining restitution, but in getting more software released under GPL. This undertaking is generally accomplished with out-of-court settlements, which in general are not publicly disclosed. Since R1 and R3 have been reverse engineered with released software, I don't think there will be much significance to this type of decision. As indicated elsewhere, I don't think Fabien has a decent copyright claim, much as Bob would like to believe he does.
If you look at GPL precedents, it is evident that FSF's goals are not in obtaining restitution, but in getting more software released under GPL. This undertaking is generally accomplished with out-of-court settlements, which in general are not publicly disclosed. Since R1 and R3 have been reverse engineered with released software, I don't think there will be much significance to this type of decision. As indicated elsewhere, I don't think Fabien has a decent copyright claim, much as Bob would like to believe he does.
>the GPL can say whatever it wants, but it is not enforceable legally
One's mind just goes blank pondering the ignorance of such statements.
I guess your mind was blank anyway, since you apparently have lost the context.
If the FSF takes him to court, they will have to show that he copied "substantial" pieces of code from Fruit. Can you show this? Please feel free to paste the code sections below. Thanks.
> If the FSF takes him to court, they will have to show that he copied "substantial" pieces of code from Fruit. Can you show this? Please feel free to paste the code sections below. Thanks.
Impossible becuase they did not have the Rybka source code. They had to rely on de-compiling, and it has already been acknowledged by experts that:
- the same source can produce different machine code dependent on compiler and compiler options
- the same machine code can be produced by different sources
Which is why I don't accept any of it without oversight from a judge in court of law. If the legal system agrees that code was copied, I would accept that.
You make statements that no one familiar with compilers and assembly language would touch with a 10 foot vaccinated crowbar.
You absolutely _can_ take a machine language program, and verify that it is semantically equivalent to a C source program. Students coming out of a good CS program, if they took a compiler course (not all are required to at some universities) can do this. If you can't do it, you can't (a) write a compiler and (b) fix bugs when a translation breaks during development.
I like this mentality of "if I can't do it, nobody can." Speaking for myself, there are a lot of things I can't do, but which I accept as having happened. The bad thing here, is that this "process" is not a difficult one. It just takes times, lots of it.
But to say it can't be done shows immense ignorance of compiler theory and practice.
You absolutely _can_ take a machine language program, and verify that it is semantically equivalent to a C source program. Students coming out of a good CS program, if they took a compiler course (not all are required to at some universities) can do this. If you can't do it, you can't (a) write a compiler and (b) fix bugs when a translation breaks during development.
I like this mentality of "if I can't do it, nobody can." Speaking for myself, there are a lot of things I can't do, but which I accept as having happened. The bad thing here, is that this "process" is not a difficult one. It just takes times, lots of it.
But to say it can't be done shows immense ignorance of compiler theory and practice.
They do not have to show that. They need to show he copied "code".
Wrong. They will need to show "substantial" code copying. It isn't going to happen no matter how much you want it to. The evidence just isn't there.
You can make all the "declarations" you want. For example, "copyright is a tort, not a criminal act." -wrong and proven. There have been others that I am not going to re-type as they are all tucked away in these threads. This statement is also wrong. Please show me the word "substantial" in the copyright law, then we can discuss that topic. I just checked, and the only occurrence of the string "substa" is substantially, which is dealing with failing to comply with "substantially" all of the provisions as laid out in copyright law is in violation ...
So, try again.
So, try again.
It is clear that you are entering an advanced stage of senility...
First, the FSF does not believe in copyright enforcement because it is antithetical to their interests in the GPL:
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/fsf-opposes-more-copyright-enforcement-in-joint-strategic-plan
Second, the requirements for proving copyright infringement have been developed in case law:
Brown Bag Software v. Symantec, 960 F.2d 1465,1472 (9th Cir.1992)
Lotus Devel. Corp. v. Borland Int’l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 813 (1st Cir.1995)
I know you don't have the ability to read through these, but they state that substantial similarity is required. The fact that you are too dimwitted to realize that a line here and there isn't going to do the trick changes nothing.
Finally, in order to be a crime rather than a tort, the action must be initiated by the Department of Justice. Are you a big enough moron to believe that the DoJ is going to go after Vas because of some mickey mouse ruling by the ICGA? You probably are.
First, the FSF does not believe in copyright enforcement because it is antithetical to their interests in the GPL:
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/fsf-opposes-more-copyright-enforcement-in-joint-strategic-plan
Second, the requirements for proving copyright infringement have been developed in case law:
Brown Bag Software v. Symantec, 960 F.2d 1465,1472 (9th Cir.1992)
Lotus Devel. Corp. v. Borland Int’l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 813 (1st Cir.1995)
I know you don't have the ability to read through these, but they state that substantial similarity is required. The fact that you are too dimwitted to realize that a line here and there isn't going to do the trick changes nothing.
Finally, in order to be a crime rather than a tort, the action must be initiated by the Department of Justice. Are you a big enough moron to believe that the DoJ is going to go after Vas because of some mickey mouse ruling by the ICGA? You probably are.
Some of Alan's recent posts are very, very sad. It's not really funny anymore to me... something is wrong... I do not pretend to know what it is. But it is most definitely sad to see...
How does one go from:
FSF Opposes More Copyright Enforcement in Joint Strategic Plan ("Opposes More" is the key here, from the link he provided)
to:
the FSF does not believe in copyright enforcement
I oppose the idea of new taxes... does that suddenly mean I do not believe in paying taxes? Or will not pay taxes if new laws are passed by Congress/the President? Of course I will pay every penny the govt. says I owe!
Back to Alan's statement:
First, the FSF does not believe in copyright enforcement (emphasis mine) because it is antithetical to their interests in the GPL:
==============================================
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/
What We Do
Our biggest task is educating users and developers working with free software about our licenses and related issues. We offer a number of resources to provide this information, from essays and FAQs to speeches and seminars. If none of that helps, we'll be happy to answer your question via e-mail. Learn more about free software licensing.
In order to stay effective, a license must be enforced (emphasis mine). The FSF holds the copyrights for many popular free software programs, such as GCC and glibc, and we enforce those licenses. We investigate all reports we receive about free software license violations, and negotiate with violators to bring them into full compliance (emphasis mine). Learn more about our compliance work.
While license education and enforcement are the focus of our efforts (emphasis mine), we deal with all issues related to free software licensing. We help coordinate the license revision process, evaluate requests for license exceptions, and more.
===============================================
It's like these arguments are driving him mad... you cannot contradict him... no matter how wrong he is w/o some sort of retribution. And what is even more sad, others here following his example.
How does one go from:
FSF Opposes More Copyright Enforcement in Joint Strategic Plan ("Opposes More" is the key here, from the link he provided)
to:
the FSF does not believe in copyright enforcement
I oppose the idea of new taxes... does that suddenly mean I do not believe in paying taxes? Or will not pay taxes if new laws are passed by Congress/the President? Of course I will pay every penny the govt. says I owe!
Back to Alan's statement:
First, the FSF does not believe in copyright enforcement (emphasis mine) because it is antithetical to their interests in the GPL:
==============================================
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/
What We Do
Our biggest task is educating users and developers working with free software about our licenses and related issues. We offer a number of resources to provide this information, from essays and FAQs to speeches and seminars. If none of that helps, we'll be happy to answer your question via e-mail. Learn more about free software licensing.
In order to stay effective, a license must be enforced (emphasis mine). The FSF holds the copyrights for many popular free software programs, such as GCC and glibc, and we enforce those licenses. We investigate all reports we receive about free software license violations, and negotiate with violators to bring them into full compliance (emphasis mine). Learn more about our compliance work.
While license education and enforcement are the focus of our efforts (emphasis mine), we deal with all issues related to free software licensing. We help coordinate the license revision process, evaluate requests for license exceptions, and more.
===============================================
It's like these arguments are driving him mad... you cannot contradict him... no matter how wrong he is w/o some sort of retribution. And what is even more sad, others here following his example.
Do you realize that the GPL _depends_ on copyright law? Of course not, you don't try to research anything at all...
Again, no big surprise there...
Again, no big surprise there...
Not surprisingly, you are unable to follow simple logic.
1) An action will be initiated by FSF, not by Fabien.
2) GPL is an alternative method for protecting software. The FSF is in the business of defending GPL, and specifically not in the business of enforcing copyright, as clearly stated in the referenced article (which you obviously didn't read).
This would be a very easy line of reasoning for a ten year old to follow, but it is obviously way over your head. No big surprise there...
1) An action will be initiated by FSF, not by Fabien.
2) GPL is an alternative method for protecting software. The FSF is in the business of defending GPL, and specifically not in the business of enforcing copyright, as clearly stated in the referenced article (which you obviously didn't read).
This would be a very easy line of reasoning for a ten year old to follow, but it is obviously way over your head. No big surprise there...
You do realize that Fabien _can_ initiate a copyright suit? Fabien holds the copyright.
Of course, you have missed on almost _every_ technical point you have raised in this debate, so no surprise you do it again...
Of course, you have missed on almost _every_ technical point you have raised in this debate, so no surprise you do it again...
Let me explain this very slowly for you Bob, so that even you can understand it...
- Copyright cases are difficult and expensive to prosecute,
- The bar for proving copyright infringement is high, requiring "substantial similarity" which is not present in the code,
- Vas does not have deep pockets, and there is a very good chance that in the highly unlikely event that Favien won, he would never collect.
This would dissuade any sane person from taking legal action.
- Copyright cases are difficult and expensive to prosecute,
- The bar for proving copyright infringement is high, requiring "substantial similarity" which is not present in the code,
- Vas does not have deep pockets, and there is a very good chance that in the highly unlikely event that Favien won, he would never collect.
This would dissuade any sane person from taking legal action.
It requires "substantial similarity" but only in the parts that are copied. It does not require that a large piece of a program or work be copied. Only that the copied part is "substantially similar" to the original. Copying one 100 line procedure is a violation of Copyright law, even if the program is 100,000 lines long. That's the point you want to hide. Because we have not claimed that all of Fruit was copied. Of course, the Crafty code that was copied is not even being discussed... yet that is just as clearly a violation of copyright, and license, but let's not let small details get in the way of trying to discredit the investigative process and result.
I could care less about whether it is difficult, expensive, challenging, annoying, or frustrating to prosecute them. Our discussion has been about copyright law, and you are intentionally trying to twist the definition to fit your agenda. After all, it is _not_ easy to write a chess program. So who cares how hard it is to prosecute a copyright violation, if "hard" were important, one would likely not have started writing a chess program in the first place. Oh yes. Vas didn't. He copied two different programs. Forget I said that about it "being hard." It is only hard for "some of us."
I could care less about whether it is difficult, expensive, challenging, annoying, or frustrating to prosecute them. Our discussion has been about copyright law, and you are intentionally trying to twist the definition to fit your agenda. After all, it is _not_ easy to write a chess program. So who cares how hard it is to prosecute a copyright violation, if "hard" were important, one would likely not have started writing a chess program in the first place. Oh yes. Vas didn't. He copied two different programs. Forget I said that about it "being hard." It is only hard for "some of us."
It requires "substantial similarity" but only in the parts that are copied. It does not require that a large piece of a program or work be copied. Only that the copied part is "substantially similar" to the original. Copying one 100 line procedure is a violation of Copyright law, even if the program is 100,000 lines long. That's the point you want to hide. Because we have not claimed that all of Fruit was copied.
There is no evidence that Fruit was copied. That is why your investigators went down the tea leave reading rout of trying to find similarity in evaluation features which has absolutely nothing to do with copyright.
Of course, the Crafty code that was copied is not even being discussed...
There is no evidence that Crafty was copied in R1.0 Beta or R2.3.2a.
I could care less about whether it is difficult, expensive, challenging, annoying, or frustrating to prosecute them.
What you really mean is that you don't care about external realities, only about what is going on between your two ears. I am trying, unsuccessfully, to drag you back to the real world, where most people don't pursue expensive legal action that has almost no chance of providing any return.
There is no evidence that Fruit was copied. That is why your investigators went down the tea leave reading rout of trying to find similarity in evaluation features which has absolutely nothing to do with copyright.
Of course, the Crafty code that was copied is not even being discussed...
There is no evidence that Crafty was copied in R1.0 Beta or R2.3.2a.
I could care less about whether it is difficult, expensive, challenging, annoying, or frustrating to prosecute them.
What you really mean is that you don't care about external realities, only about what is going on between your two ears. I am trying, unsuccessfully, to drag you back to the real world, where most people don't pursue expensive legal action that has almost no chance of providing any return.
> advanced stage of senility
From "Happy Gilmore", and one of my favorite quotes to use...though unfortunately only funny in real life if the person is obviously quite young. :-(
I can't stand Adam Sandler, have never seen "Happy Gilmore", and got in a lot of trouble for using this phrase ~25 years ago...
Neither GPL nor copyright has the word "substantial" anywhere in them. So let's keep this factual rather than imaginary.
It's clear that you know less than nothing about legal interpretation through case law and precedent. Furthermore, since you are handicapped and unable to read the rulings, I have provided the relevant passage for you from the circuit court of appeals ruling. As these passages illustrate, there is a high bar for the "substantial similarity" test in the case of software copyright.
I. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT In any suit for copyright infringement, the plaintiff must establish its ownership of a valid copyright, and that the defendant copied the copyrighted work. See Novelty Textile Mills, Inc. v. Joan Fabrics Corp., 558 F.2d 1090, 1092 (2d Cir.1977); see also 3 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright s 13.01, at 13-4 (1991) (hereinafter "Nimmer"). The plaintiff may prove defendant's copying either by direct evidence or, as is most often the case, by showing that (1) the defendant had access to the plaintiff's copyrighted work and (2) that defendant's work is substantially similar to the plaintiff's copyrightable material. See Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44, 48 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1159, 106 S.Ct. 2278, 90 L.Ed.2d 721 (1986).
The third and final step of the
test for substantial similarity that
we believe appropriate for non-literal
program components entails a comparison.
Once a court has sifted out all
elements of the allegedly infringed
program which are "ideas" or are dictated
by efficiency or external factors,
or taken from the public domain,
there may remain a core of protectable
expression. In terms of a work's copyright
value, this is the golden
nugget. See Brown Bag Software, 960
F.2d at 1475. At this point, the
court's substantial similarity inquiry
focuses on whether the defendant
copied any aspect of this protected
expression, as well as an assessment
of the copied portion's relative importance
with respect to the plaintiff's
overall program. See 3 Nimmer §
13.03[F][5]; Data East USA, 862 F.2d
at 208 ("To determine whether similarities
result from unprotectable expression,
analytic dissection of similarities
may be [*711] performed. If
. . . all similarities in expression
arise from use of common ideas, then
no substantial [**55] similarity can
be found.").
I. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT In any suit for copyright infringement, the plaintiff must establish its ownership of a valid copyright, and that the defendant copied the copyrighted work. See Novelty Textile Mills, Inc. v. Joan Fabrics Corp., 558 F.2d 1090, 1092 (2d Cir.1977); see also 3 Melville B. Nimmer & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright s 13.01, at 13-4 (1991) (hereinafter "Nimmer"). The plaintiff may prove defendant's copying either by direct evidence or, as is most often the case, by showing that (1) the defendant had access to the plaintiff's copyrighted work and (2) that defendant's work is substantially similar to the plaintiff's copyrightable material. See Walker v. Time Life Films, Inc., 784 F.2d 44, 48 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1159, 106 S.Ct. 2278, 90 L.Ed.2d 721 (1986).
The third and final step of the
test for substantial similarity that
we believe appropriate for non-literal
program components entails a comparison.
Once a court has sifted out all
elements of the allegedly infringed
program which are "ideas" or are dictated
by efficiency or external factors,
or taken from the public domain,
there may remain a core of protectable
expression. In terms of a work's copyright
value, this is the golden
nugget. See Brown Bag Software, 960
F.2d at 1475. At this point, the
court's substantial similarity inquiry
focuses on whether the defendant
copied any aspect of this protected
expression, as well as an assessment
of the copied portion's relative importance
with respect to the plaintiff's
overall program. See 3 Nimmer §
13.03[F][5]; Data East USA, 862 F.2d
at 208 ("To determine whether similarities
result from unprotectable expression,
analytic dissection of similarities
may be [*711] performed. If
. . . all similarities in expression
arise from use of common ideas, then
no substantial [**55] similarity can
be found.").
Of course you don't "get it". Take this part of what you quoted:
The third and final step of the
test for substantial similarity that
we believe appropriate for non-literal
program components entails a comparison.
Take that slow and easy. "Substantial similarity ... non-literal program components."
Two things that anyone can see.
First, this is talking about a case such as the fruit 2.1 / Rybka 2.3.2a evaluation comparison where we showed that they were "substantially similar" in that they used the same components (weak pawns, king safety, piece centralization, mobility, piece/square tables, etc) and used them in the same way, and in the same order, and with the same numeric score components. That they were "substantially similar" but not identical. They could not be "identical" because of the difference in the way each represents the chess board. But except for that difference, they are identical.
In the other code, it was not "substantially similar" but it was _exactl_ copying." And there is absolutely no statement in the copyright law that says you must copy "substantial parts" of a work before it is copied exactly. You twist the copyright law, then make up what it means, and use that as an argument to prove our investigation was flawed. The only thing that is flawed is your intentional and continual attempts to twist a law into something that it isn't...
Now how about your learning to read and understand this stuff, rather than trying to take a single word, turn it into whatever you want it to mean, then argue that point as if it were in the US copyright law.
The third and final step of the
test for substantial similarity that
we believe appropriate for non-literal
program components entails a comparison.
Take that slow and easy. "Substantial similarity ... non-literal program components."
Two things that anyone can see.
First, this is talking about a case such as the fruit 2.1 / Rybka 2.3.2a evaluation comparison where we showed that they were "substantially similar" in that they used the same components (weak pawns, king safety, piece centralization, mobility, piece/square tables, etc) and used them in the same way, and in the same order, and with the same numeric score components. That they were "substantially similar" but not identical. They could not be "identical" because of the difference in the way each represents the chess board. But except for that difference, they are identical.
In the other code, it was not "substantially similar" but it was _exactl_ copying." And there is absolutely no statement in the copyright law that says you must copy "substantial parts" of a work before it is copied exactly. You twist the copyright law, then make up what it means, and use that as an argument to prove our investigation was flawed. The only thing that is flawed is your intentional and continual attempts to twist a law into something that it isn't...
Now how about your learning to read and understand this stuff, rather than trying to take a single word, turn it into whatever you want it to mean, then argue that point as if it were in the US copyright law.
As per usual, Bob will not admit that he has no clue what he is talking about.
First, let's recap where we've been. Bob Hyatt, a legend in his own mind, states categorically that:
Neither GPL nor copyright has the word "substantial" anywhere in them. So let's keep this factual rather than imaginary.
Even though the ruling of the court of appeals is the interpretation for enforcement standards for software copyright infringement in the USA.
After seeing part of the summary, and seeing that it is totally dependent on substantial similarity, he then misconstrues what substantial similarity means. How is that possible when it is so extensively written up in the decision? Well, the reality is that Bob just isn't capable of reading anything at this level...
First, this is talking about a case such as the fruit 2.1 / Rybka 2.3.2a evaluation comparison where we showed that they were "substantially similar" in that they used the same components (weak pawns, king safety, piece centralization, mobility, piece/square tables, etc) and used them in the same way, and in the same order, and with the same numeric score components. That they were "substantially similar" but not identical. They could not be "identical" because of the difference in the way each represents the chess board. But except for that difference, they are identical.
This argument is pure bullshit and once again shows that Bob didn't read the rulings. What needs to be substantially similar is the software, not the underlying ideas (which in this case are feature types which are representations of ideas that were already in the public domain). Anyone who reads through the circuit court rulings, will quickly see how high the bar is for software copyright, and will recognize that the so called "evidence" from the ICGA show trial as being both farcical and irrelevant to meeting this standard.
Once again, Bob has proven only that he is delusional. He will do and say anything to maintain the illusion that he knows what he is talking about.
First, let's recap where we've been. Bob Hyatt, a legend in his own mind, states categorically that:
Neither GPL nor copyright has the word "substantial" anywhere in them. So let's keep this factual rather than imaginary.
Even though the ruling of the court of appeals is the interpretation for enforcement standards for software copyright infringement in the USA.
After seeing part of the summary, and seeing that it is totally dependent on substantial similarity, he then misconstrues what substantial similarity means. How is that possible when it is so extensively written up in the decision? Well, the reality is that Bob just isn't capable of reading anything at this level...
First, this is talking about a case such as the fruit 2.1 / Rybka 2.3.2a evaluation comparison where we showed that they were "substantially similar" in that they used the same components (weak pawns, king safety, piece centralization, mobility, piece/square tables, etc) and used them in the same way, and in the same order, and with the same numeric score components. That they were "substantially similar" but not identical. They could not be "identical" because of the difference in the way each represents the chess board. But except for that difference, they are identical.
This argument is pure bullshit and once again shows that Bob didn't read the rulings. What needs to be substantially similar is the software, not the underlying ideas (which in this case are feature types which are representations of ideas that were already in the public domain). Anyone who reads through the circuit court rulings, will quickly see how high the bar is for software copyright, and will recognize that the so called "evidence" from the ICGA show trial as being both farcical and irrelevant to meeting this standard.
Once again, Bob has proven only that he is delusional. He will do and say anything to maintain the illusion that he knows what he is talking about.
You do realize that "copyright law" and "interpretation of copyright law" are not the same thing? Didn't think so.
The interpretation does _not_ say that the copy and the original have to be "substantially equivalent" for there to be infringement. It says that there must be substantial equivalence in the parts that are copied, only. I thought it was quite obvious. My attorney friend said it was "quite obvious." I didn't tell him, however, that we were sometimes dealing with a kindergarten level of audience, or he might have changed his mind. That is what you want the interpretation to say, but it is not _what_ it says, sorry. The key phrase "The third and final step of the test for substantial similarity that we believe appropriate for non-literal program components entails a comparison." See that important part that says " substantial similarity that we believe appropriate for non-literal program components "??? That "substantial" has nothing to do with the _entire program_. You need to show substantial similarity between the component in the original program that you believe was copied, and the equivalent component in the program you claim is original. You can cry, beg and scream, but that is _exactly_ what the report shows. Although in the case of Crafty, there is no "substantially equivalence" at all. It is perfect line for line copying. In Rybka 1.0 beta, the parts of the fruit eval listed and the parts of the Rybka eval disassembled are absolutely "substantially equivalent."
Notice I am not talking about "underlying ideas." I am talking about a specific hand-coded procedure that performs N steps in a specific order, with each of the N steps being identical in every way, _except_ as necessary for the bitboard/mailbox difference. You want to make this about ideas. Won't work. It is about copying specific blocks of code. Nothing you can say will change that. You want to cleverly slip in your distortions and hope they won't be noticed.
Notice I have _repeatedly_ said the following, as does the report.
A major part of the fruit evaluation code is present in Rybka. It evaluates the same positional ideas, in the same order, in the same way, using the same partial score bonuses and penalties. The _only_ difference between the code in Fruit and the code in Rybka, is the board representation which makes you ask certain questions differently (is this pawn isolated, or passed, or supported, or mobile, etc.) We are not talking about ideas. We are talking about taking a mailbox evaluation, and only changing what is necessary to make it work with bitboards, and _that_ is "substantial similarity" and a violation of ICGA rules, GPL and copyright, all rolled into one, although the "substantial similarity" only appears in the interpretation of US copyright law...
The bar is only as high as the court makes it. And certainly the opinion you are quoting is much more in line with our investigation and report than your nonsense is.
Of course, keep rambling on.
The interpretation does _not_ say that the copy and the original have to be "substantially equivalent" for there to be infringement. It says that there must be substantial equivalence in the parts that are copied, only. I thought it was quite obvious. My attorney friend said it was "quite obvious." I didn't tell him, however, that we were sometimes dealing with a kindergarten level of audience, or he might have changed his mind. That is what you want the interpretation to say, but it is not _what_ it says, sorry. The key phrase "The third and final step of the test for substantial similarity that we believe appropriate for non-literal program components entails a comparison." See that important part that says " substantial similarity that we believe appropriate for non-literal program components "??? That "substantial" has nothing to do with the _entire program_. You need to show substantial similarity between the component in the original program that you believe was copied, and the equivalent component in the program you claim is original. You can cry, beg and scream, but that is _exactly_ what the report shows. Although in the case of Crafty, there is no "substantially equivalence" at all. It is perfect line for line copying. In Rybka 1.0 beta, the parts of the fruit eval listed and the parts of the Rybka eval disassembled are absolutely "substantially equivalent."
Notice I am not talking about "underlying ideas." I am talking about a specific hand-coded procedure that performs N steps in a specific order, with each of the N steps being identical in every way, _except_ as necessary for the bitboard/mailbox difference. You want to make this about ideas. Won't work. It is about copying specific blocks of code. Nothing you can say will change that. You want to cleverly slip in your distortions and hope they won't be noticed.
Notice I have _repeatedly_ said the following, as does the report.
A major part of the fruit evaluation code is present in Rybka. It evaluates the same positional ideas, in the same order, in the same way, using the same partial score bonuses and penalties. The _only_ difference between the code in Fruit and the code in Rybka, is the board representation which makes you ask certain questions differently (is this pawn isolated, or passed, or supported, or mobile, etc.) We are not talking about ideas. We are talking about taking a mailbox evaluation, and only changing what is necessary to make it work with bitboards, and _that_ is "substantial similarity" and a violation of ICGA rules, GPL and copyright, all rolled into one, although the "substantial similarity" only appears in the interpretation of US copyright law...
The bar is only as high as the court makes it. And certainly the opinion you are quoting is much more in line with our investigation and report than your nonsense is.
Of course, keep rambling on.
You do realize that "copyright law" and "interpretation of copyright law" are not the same thing? Didn't think so.
This is an idiotic statement. The only thing that matters is how the law is applied. This is determined based on case law and precedent, i.e. the interpretation of the law.
The interpretation does _not_ say that the copy and the original have to be "substantially equivalent" for there to be infringement. It says that there must be substantial equivalence in the parts that are copied, only. I thought it was quite obvious. My attorney friend said it was "quite obvious." I didn't tell him, however, that we were sometimes dealing with a kindergarten level of audience, or he might have changed his mind. That is what you want the interpretation to say, but it is not _what_ it says, sorry. The key phrase "The third and final step of the test for substantial similarity that we believe appropriate for non-literal program components entails a comparison." See that important part that says " substantial similarity that we believe appropriate for non-literal program components "??? That "substantial" has nothing to do with the _entire program_. You need to show substantial similarity between the component in the original program that you believe was copied, and the equivalent component in the program you claim is original. You can cry, beg and scream, but that is _exactly_ what the report shows. Although in the case of Crafty, there is no "substantially equivalence" at all. It is perfect line for line copying. In Rybka 1.0 beta, the parts of the fruit eval listed and the parts of the Rybka eval disassembled are absolutely "substantially equivalent."
This is all bullshit. If your were able to read, you would have noted that the circuit court rulings were in cases where there was real copying going on, not the farcical stuff you found between Rybka and Fruit. Of course, anyone with any common sense would have realized that these cases wouldn't have been taken up by the circuit court if there weren't real issues involved. These rulings established a very high bar for software copyright infringement, and your laughable investigative reports don't even come close to meeting this standard.
Notice I am not talking about "underlying ideas." I am talking about a specific hand-coded procedure that performs N steps in a specific order, with each of the N steps being identical in every way, _except_ as necessary for the bitboard/mailbox difference. You want to make this about ideas. Won't work. It is about copying specific blocks of code. Nothing you can say will change that. You want to cleverly slip in your distortions and hope they won't be noticed.
More bullshit. Your formula involves repeating untruths until people accept them as truths. The reality is that there is no evidence for "substantial similarity" in the code of Fruit and Rybka, and this is why your investigator chose a different standard, i.e. plagiarism, rather than code copying.
We are talking about taking a mailbox evaluation, and only changing what is necessary to make it work with bitboards, and _that_ is "substantial similarity" and a violation of ICGA rules, GPL and copyright, all rolled into one, although the "substantial similarity" only appears in the interpretation of US copyright law...
Pointing out that the discriminator, "substantial similarity", only occurs in the circuit court ruling shows that you are clueless when it comes to understanding the importance of precedence.
The bar is only as high as the court makes it.
And the circuit court has made it a million times higher than you have reached with your sad investigation.
This is an idiotic statement. The only thing that matters is how the law is applied. This is determined based on case law and precedent, i.e. the interpretation of the law.
The interpretation does _not_ say that the copy and the original have to be "substantially equivalent" for there to be infringement. It says that there must be substantial equivalence in the parts that are copied, only. I thought it was quite obvious. My attorney friend said it was "quite obvious." I didn't tell him, however, that we were sometimes dealing with a kindergarten level of audience, or he might have changed his mind. That is what you want the interpretation to say, but it is not _what_ it says, sorry. The key phrase "The third and final step of the test for substantial similarity that we believe appropriate for non-literal program components entails a comparison." See that important part that says " substantial similarity that we believe appropriate for non-literal program components "??? That "substantial" has nothing to do with the _entire program_. You need to show substantial similarity between the component in the original program that you believe was copied, and the equivalent component in the program you claim is original. You can cry, beg and scream, but that is _exactly_ what the report shows. Although in the case of Crafty, there is no "substantially equivalence" at all. It is perfect line for line copying. In Rybka 1.0 beta, the parts of the fruit eval listed and the parts of the Rybka eval disassembled are absolutely "substantially equivalent."
This is all bullshit. If your were able to read, you would have noted that the circuit court rulings were in cases where there was real copying going on, not the farcical stuff you found between Rybka and Fruit. Of course, anyone with any common sense would have realized that these cases wouldn't have been taken up by the circuit court if there weren't real issues involved. These rulings established a very high bar for software copyright infringement, and your laughable investigative reports don't even come close to meeting this standard.
Notice I am not talking about "underlying ideas." I am talking about a specific hand-coded procedure that performs N steps in a specific order, with each of the N steps being identical in every way, _except_ as necessary for the bitboard/mailbox difference. You want to make this about ideas. Won't work. It is about copying specific blocks of code. Nothing you can say will change that. You want to cleverly slip in your distortions and hope they won't be noticed.
More bullshit. Your formula involves repeating untruths until people accept them as truths. The reality is that there is no evidence for "substantial similarity" in the code of Fruit and Rybka, and this is why your investigator chose a different standard, i.e. plagiarism, rather than code copying.
We are talking about taking a mailbox evaluation, and only changing what is necessary to make it work with bitboards, and _that_ is "substantial similarity" and a violation of ICGA rules, GPL and copyright, all rolled into one, although the "substantial similarity" only appears in the interpretation of US copyright law...
Pointing out that the discriminator, "substantial similarity", only occurs in the circuit court ruling shows that you are clueless when it comes to understanding the importance of precedence.
The bar is only as high as the court makes it.
And the circuit court has made it a million times higher than you have reached with your sad investigation.
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