Guess I will have to change my mind and tell David that based on that ingenious leap of faith, I was wrong in my analysis.
Wait, I was _not_ wrong. You are just writing nonsense. Guess I won't have to email him after all.
But keep trying. Sillier and sillier. You can't go much further in that direction.
You want to cite an interpretation of copyright law (which can change with the next court ruling of course), and then interpret that interpretation and twist the meaning of words to try to make it appear to support your position? Nice. real nice. And if only everyone here had a 3rd grade education or less, and an IQ of 50 or less, you might even get away with it.
I like the idea, however. "Interpret an interpretation" and then use your interpretation as if the court had written it. Clever. But transparent.
Uh, no. Your reading comprehension skills are pretty much nonexistent. The circuit court did NOT find for the plaintiff, even though there was some undisputed real copying going on. Meanwhile, you believe that a court would find for you based on your farcical arguments.
It's no surprise that with your oversized head, you can't accept the fact that you are clueless in this matter.
Since this referred to the FSF, worst case is that they would go to Vas and make an agreement with him to release the source code for R1. Certainly not the end of the world.
> To be honest I didn't really know much about GPL, and presumed that the main reason for someone to release code as GPL
> was to get some new aspiring programmer a solid stable and bug free platform to get started on so he can have a head start
> and concentrate all his energies on new innovations rather than wasting time inventing what has already been invented.
> I would bet a lot of people here felt the same way.
What you presume about the GPL, and how many people "feel the same way", is of course not very relevant. I always felt that money was designed to increase the prosperity of people, and when I try to implement that goalby dipping my hands into the cash drawer of the supermarket, they throw me in the slammer very time...
If people merely want to geive other programmers a headstart, they release their source in the public domain ('freeware'). Then there are no conditions attached to its use in any way.
The GPL, however, puts some conditions a prospective user of the code would have to comply with, in order to obtain the rights to use the code in return. Because users need to obtain such rights, they are not automatic, just because it was published. In general it is forbidden by law to copy stuff, no matter how easily you could obtain it. You cannot do it without permission from the author, and the GPL specifies you will only have that permission if you publish the sources of the entire program.
So if there is any Fruit code in Rybka, it was copied, used and distributed without permission. Like I would have printed my own copies of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, sold them in many countries for year, and made a pack of money from it, before they found me out. Your think that a judge in that case would let me off by saying: "you must stop selling those boot-legged copies of the book, but you can keep the money you earned with it so far"?
If that is what your lawyers tell you, my advice is not to pay / hire them... Not even 2 cents!
There are plenty of precedents for exactly this type of GPL violation where the FSF took legal action, and the infringing party came down hard. And, as you would have noticed when you had been paying attention, THIS MATTER WAS NOT HANDLED BY ICGA AT ALL. The ICGA just disqualified Rybka for plagiarism, which had nothing to do with illegal copying or the GPL.
The tax service requires I keep my accounts on which I based my tax declaration for 10 years. So 5 years does not seem an unreasonable period. The last time Rybka won, btw, was less than a year ago. That doesn't seem an unreasonable period at all.
Of course it is not really credible in the first place that someone would lose every source he ever had. Is there a record of his house burning down, or a nuclear attack on the place where he lived?
In any event, rule or no rule, there is just no way that Vas would be amenable to handing the source for Cluster Rybka to his competitors. Paranoia? Maybe, but as the old joke goes, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean there isn't somebody out to get you!
> Did Rybka 4 compete? I seem to recall it was Cluster Rybka competing...
Well, cluster Rybka, then. I am pretty sure the two will be very much related in terms of move generation and evaluation.
> In any event, rule or no rule, there is just no way that Vas would be amenable to handing the source for Cluster Rybka to his competitors.
For one, it could have been set up in such a way that no competitors would get to see it. This seems a reasonable request, and for that reason I would expect it to be negociable between ICGA and Vas to agree on the people who got to see it. Not everyone on the investigating committee was a competitor. Ken Thompson, for instance. Note that in the presence of source code it becomes a few orders of magnitude less effort to make the comparison, so it would not nearly require as much man power.
If Vas was had no intention to comply with the rule for providing source code on demand, he should not have participated. By entering Rybka for the WCCC he subscribed to those rules. You basically claim that he was just cheating with that to get Rybka in. Well, that alone deserves a ban.
This is a good point. He probably didn't think it through, but there was just no way that he would ever have considered providing his source code to the ICGA. Maybe in the future, the ICGA will require source code in advance from all participants and we will see who shows up.
It is got to know that when the rules can be made more explicit, the ICGA makes the attempt. Not much can be concluded from this, however. Even FIDE adapted the rules for casting to make it more explicit that vertical castling (O-O-O-O-O-O) was not allowed, no matter how contrived the interpretation that the old rules allowed it was. Anyway, if no explicit limit was mentioned to the requirement to provide source code,one can only assume that the obligation applies forever after.
Fact is that Vas showed no Rybka source code, while it was requested just a few month after he participated, and subscribed to the statement that he would.
I am surprised you think we disagree, because it seems that things pretty much went the way you say they should. Except that Vas did not show up for the defense. So as a neutral observer, I say: "Of course he deserves whatever he gets!". Justice could never be effective if those that have to stand trial could simply refuse to participate, and then automatically be found not-guilty.
This is a cheating idea. Justice is nothing that could be reached in so called kangooroo courts or by simple lynching but only in legal cases, court trials with independent judges who have in mind how such cases had been solved in the past.
Of course you can do what you want in private, e.g. being Santa Claus, but you couldnt argue that this were justice or justified. Of course the ICGA could ban Vas, arguing he always wins over Amir Ban's Junior, just to show an example.
Concerning the new points you bring up for disussion: it seems you support my view that the ICGA did a good job in delivering justice. They subjected the case to a court of independent judges (the ICGA board), that had ruled in the case of cloning charges on several occasions in the past. Or do you think the ICGA board was under too much pressure to not damage the reputation of their tournament, and therefore let Vas go unpunished?
Let me try and allow me to talk to you on a personal level.
As I know you are familiar with many fields in science. From many single items I could see that your personality is far from being in the need of impostering. To the contrary for you creativity is far more important than a specific rank to impress your peers or other observers.
Couldnt you find a good argument for the fact that beyond a possible problem of exact mentioning what we should discard for the moment, Vas has huge merits in what he performed on his own creativity and what brought him many victories in a row? Wouldnt you agree with those who by far wouldnt argue that such someone were allowed to do what he wanted in a negative sense, but that in such a case a *very* careful investigation should be done and especially therefore because it's such a private process. I could figure some very different measures been taken that would demonstrate that something wasnt koscher but that overall Vas isnt just a dumb copy freak? For all I have in mind the following aspect. I didnt discover it because I wouldnt even understand it but I read that for what Vas was able to perform he wouldnt have neccessarily needed certain stuff out of Crafty by all means and also Fruit? So that I as a psychologist would favor a theory that Vas didnt act intentiously as a cheater but more in negligence in a mind of an explorer and inventor who is just flying high far away from too human business aspects including exact quotations?
Again that might still be unallowed but in a private and familiar environment it should at least be considered?
Could you examine my arguments again? Interdisciplinary questions are not too new for you I guess? Thanks for any comment.
I think that we can also assume that parts of Rybka 3 were examined by at least some in the committee, and nothing was found, and due to this, no statements have been made on it. Rybka 3 having offending code would be far more damning than the previous versions, in my opinion, because Rybka 3 was what really made the Rybka "institution" great.
You can take your assumptions and 4 bucks and get a tasty latte at Starbucks. Did you find notes about R3 on the ICGA wiki? Did you ask any of the investigators about it? Maybe you should before you let your biased assumptions get the best of you...
> Larry has never seen the code of Rybka -- he fed Vas numbers. What does he have to do with it?
How do you know this? I know that he has said that he thinks that Rybka 3 is clean, and I know that most others, except for perhaps a few of the most extreme in this, accept his statements. Larry Kaufman wrote the evaluation function of Rybka 3, and the evaluation function is one of the major things that people are complaining about--probably the most significant.
> You can take your assumptions and 4 bucks and get a tasty latte at Starbucks.
Trying toning down your attitude--there is no reason for it, and it is unjustified coming from you.
> Did you find notes about R3 on the ICGA wiki?
Post a link to what notes you're referring to. I have been through the ICGA wiki and have found nothing concerning code similarities with Rybka 3, other than that the overlap between Rybka 3 and Komodo is likely to be much smaller than between Fruit 2.1 and earlier Rybka versions.
> Maybe you should before you let your biased assumptions get the best of you...
As you can see, I have checked stuff, and have found that of my "biased assumptions", the primary things that were wrong were those about the ICGA investigation being relatively clean and without too many procedural errors. I also wrongly assumed that the code sections found to "match" actually do "match", but this seems like a difficult assumption to hold after taking a look, which is why I'm directly asking Bob to clarify these situations. You're welcome to try, too. If you do so, please list report name, page number, and summarize the supposed matching code.
No hard feelings, I hope.
> Again this should be handled by FSF and a court of law, and not by ICGA or some programmers (no matter how gifted they might be).
Exactly. But ICGA is not the court nor did the ICGA implicitly imply they are/were. The ruling from ICGA only pertains to the rules and arena of ICGA tournaments. Not the court or the law of the land.
Yes, the court of law in this area still has to make rulings in this matter. I believe this is where the FSF steps in if they decide to take Vas to court. Already proven is that (1) Vas has broken the GPL license/rules by refusing to publish his codes along with the executive Rybka files, (2) He denied using GPL codes in Rybka...something now shown to be the contrary. On this precepts, Vas entered tournaments and won prizes and also sold GPL engine/s.
Sorry, this is not the case, no matter how many times you repeat it. Please feel free to post a "substantial" piece of copied code to prove me wrong. The ICGA can do whatever it wants and can throw Vas out for no reason at all. But if FSF wants to go after Vas, they will need to find some copied code. The argument that "it's obvious" just won't fly.
> Sorry, this is not the case, no matter how many times you repeat it. Please feel free to post a "substantial" piece of copied code to prove me wrong.
I told you were to find it. Anyone with just about an internet access can easily obtain these information. A saying comes to mind; You can lead a horse to water (or a river) but you can't force it to drink.
Or should I say; Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. In this case substitute "truth" for beauty. But it seems no matter the staggering evidence & universal truth presented, some want 'their own version' of truth. I can't help there....
> But if FSF wants to go after Vas, they will need to find some copied code.
Of course if the FSF decides to go to court, they'll have to provide proof. This is the 'norm'. So I'm not sure of any sane person, an organization, or company that decides to take one to court without evidence against the accused.
It is very clear the GPL licens was/is violated. Sorry but that's the conclusion. ICGA are only interested with their own rules in ICGA tourneys - that chess engine authors agree to. The FSF is (or should be ) concern with enforcing the violated GPL rules & regulations.
Additionally the ICGA ruling against Vas/Rybka is not out of spite nor to see how good Vas can thumb his nose at them. It's about ICGA upholding and enforcing their ICGA-rules-&-regulations that authors willingly adhere to. Vas (and other authors) who break the rules suffer the recompense.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill