Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Support / My 2 cents on the Rybka - Fruit GPL violation (if any)
![[us]](/mwf/v12/flags/us.png "United States")
Ah, so now your "excuse" is going to be "they applied it where real copying was going on as opposed to the 'farcical' (your word) copying we showed?"
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.
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.
Ah, so now your "excuse" is going to be "they applied it where real copying was going on as opposed to the 'farcical' (your word) copying we showed?"
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.
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.
That's an old and incorrect argument. They do not have to show that he copied "substantial pieces of code". They have to show that any piece of code that was copied is "substantially similar" to the code in the original...
If we were talking about copyright, I would tell you to read the circuit court ruling.
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.
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.
And rybka thru 2.3.2a. And they would most likely and quite reasonably demand to see rybka 3/4/5 source to make certain it is clean and therefore free of the GPL.
![[nl]](/mwf/v12/flags/nl.png "Netherlands")
> 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!
![[gb]](/mwf/v12/flags/gb.png "United Kingdom")
I have probably dealt with and deal with lawyers more than anyone here (by a long shot). Even in areas where I have more than 25 years experience, I continuously find that the law really is not so simple and clear, and can be interpreted by 2 different lawyers completely differently. Cases that seem iron clad and clear cut can actually be the complete opposite. So with all due respect to all the programmers and engine coders that think they have all the information to decide one way or another, I think they might be surprised at how this might turn out if FSF does take this to court and a robust defense is organized. 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).
+100
I try to avoid lawyers wherever I can, because the only time I hired one, it ended up in him suing me over his fee. (I won, of course.) So since then I have been handling my own court cases...
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.
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.
I agree that ICGA can disqualify at will, but the disqualification has to be based on software that participated in its tourney. That clearly did not happen as there was no provisions in place at the time to collect the executables that would participate, nor was it a prerequisite for participation. What happened is that ICGA took some older Rybka code, claimed it was a derivative or plagiarized, and then took a leap of faith that by default the participating engine and all future participating engines by that particular author would also be equivalently at fault. That just seems very wrong!
They requested source code of the version that was participating. None was given. End of story...
Come on you can't be serious! What if he did not give the code that participated because he no longer had a copy and that is why he didn't give it. Again keeping the code that participated indefinetly was not a requirement. He could easily give a copy of Rybka 4.1 and say sorry I don't have the old stuff any more because it is no longer of interest. You can't change the rules after the fact and then use those changes retroactively to punish a participant. I guess a court might listen to the argument that a participant should present the code if asked, but I am not so sure he would accept the argument that this stands forever. A court will not be biased and may decide that 5 or 6 years is an unreasonable amount of time to keep old code that is morphing almost weekly.
Oh, I am convinced that when he would have given them a copy of Rybka 4, the result might have been much different. Assuming that copy would be clean, of course. If it would still be an obvious clone, it would not have helped him much.
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?
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?
Did Rybka 4 compete? I seem to recall it was Cluster Rybka competing...
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!
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.
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.
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.
Indeed, it would be very interesting to see who shows up.
![[es]](/mwf/v12/flags/es.png "Spain")
You answered your own question ... with regards to taxes, there are clear rules to how long you should keep records and how long they are valid for. That was not the case with ICGA and that is why they seem to be changing this rule for future events. If it was very clear there would have been no need to change anything.
Weird, I was not aware I posed any question...
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.
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 was not aware that ICGA requested the code after just a few months. Who told you that, and who was it that requested it? If so then that would be reasonable, but I don't understand why they kept this request secret or at least not well publicized for the public. Also why did they not act immediately on this?
The ICGA investigation started 6 month ago, right? So that would have been around January 2011. The last time Rybka participated in the WCCC was October 2010. I count 3 months there.
Well I guess if you look really hard, a square can look like a circle too! Either you are being facetious, or your argument is really stretching things around. I am not sure when exactly Rybka last participated, but it is clear that if there was an infraction it was based on the very earliest version of Rybka and not the latest version. If the ICGA has handled their inquisition in a similar manner in which you are presenting things, then we obviously have a big problem and a great injustice has been done.
I gather from this that you do not believe that the ICGA would have let Vas keep his 2010 title when it was shown that the version he participated it was scrupulously clean? Where do you base that on?
Look, I don't think we should continue this as we obviously have a different threshold for applying guilt. It almost seems that a verdict was decided before any sort of investigation was done, and only evidence that would seem to support that verdict was used and all else discarded. So let's just agree to disagree. You might have more insight on this matter than I do as a programmer and that is all fair and good. But I believe a detective should never make up his judgement based on evidence he collects ... the way it works is that a detective takes his evidence and presents it to a court and there a court allows a defense to challenge the credentials of the evidence and only then decides on a verdict. It would be a horrible world if all detectives would also be the judge and the jury. IMHO yourself and Bob and the others are the detectives in this matter, but most certainly you should not also double as judge and jury. I can understand why you would disagree with that, but you have to understand that others will think that this is highly unfair and most probably very wrong.
Well, for one you can leave me out of the detective club. I have never seen Rybka or any of its derivatives, neither have I ever looked at the code of Crafty, and the first time I looked a tiny part of the Fruit code was a month ago. I am nothing but an interested observer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is not clear to me why anything you write above is at all relevant to what you quote. So why do you quote it? Do you disagree, and think that it would provide very effetive justice if, in stead of being asked to plead "guilty" or "not guilty", the accused was asked "Would you want to be prosecuted?", and then acquitted when he answered "No!". You really think that?
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?
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?
Thanks for giving me the chance to clarify what meant. In my books of what I learned justice is always something valid to all no matter of other differences. I am certain that you know that Vas could only be judged (in the ICGA process) after his code which is closed was ripped apart or how you call that process. That alone is a serious invasion. Based on such an act I see justice only done if also other competitors would be treated this way. But that would be impossible because it would lead to a destruction of the ICGA itself.
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.
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 most people accept that the versions that participated in 2008, 2009, and 2010 were probably clean, especially the last two versions. The penalty on those years was applied for potential "past guilt".
![[de]](/mwf/v12/flags/de.png "Germany")
Emphasis on the word "probably". Given the demonstration of "dirty" entries before, why should the ICGA give Vas the benefit of the doubt? He had the option to explain himself and chose not to do so. The ICGA made the appropriate decision in those cases.
jb
jb
He chose not to explain himself for the 2006 and 2007 entries, and the ICGA made the appropriate decision in those cases. As for 2008-2010, there was nothing to explain, as the ICGA put forth nothing that needed explaining.
Maybe you misunderstood me. The evidence of 2006-2007 prepares a situation where the "probably clean" of 2008-2010 means "dirty", as far as the ICGA is concerned. Until Vasik demonstrates cleanliness, the ICGA has no obligation to assume it, and every reason to retroactively exclude his "potentially dirty" software from the competitions in which it participated.
jb
jb
The ICGA DOES have obligation to assume cleanliness, especially since Larry told them so. Rybka 3 was basically a complete rewrite, so assuming that he's going to take lots and lots from a 2700 program to make a 3200 program is a bit of a stretch.
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.
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.
Larry has never seen the code of Rybka -- he fed Vas numbers. What does he have to do with it?
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...
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.
I see that Bob answered most of your points here. Just a quick note wrt my poorly conceived comments re: assumption. There are a lot of people on this forum who are throwing around plenty of far-fetched assumptions, and I shouldn't have lumped you in with that group. What you wrote, though, was essentially an accusation of a cover-up, and that, coupled with the fact that it was an "assumption", rather than being based on any evidence, triggered my allergy...
No hard feelings, I hope.
jb
No hard feelings, I hope.
jb
Oh, I wasn't implying a cover-up--I was implying the use of a typical procedure when you're going after someone: you use the best evidence that you have, and you ignore the stuff that doesn't help your case. In general, there is nothing wrong with that. However, when it's generally accepted and believed that Rybkas 3 and 4 have quite a high chance of being clean, and there is no evidence to the contrary, it would seem that a much more just consequence would be to have 2006 and 2007 prizes revoked, but not 2008 and onward, after the "athlete has come clean".
> 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.
He denied using GPL codes in Rybka...something now shown to be the contrary.
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. 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.
The reality is that there is nothing of significance there, and therefor there is nothing of significance here. Nor will there be anything here, now or later. Feel free to continue pretending otherwise.
You are wrong! It HAS NOT been proven that Vas broken GPL license. To prove that you have to get a ruling from the appropriate court. In a court of a law you would be able to provide a defence, and a judge might decide that no GPL license was ever violated. The entire idea that this has gone through a legal process and a legal outcome has been established is ridiculous to say the least!
Well, there are absolute facts and legal facts. If I see my neighbor cut his wife in pieces, it is an absolute fact that he is a murderer. He might not (yet) be a murderer in the legal sense, but that is just a technicality.
Do your really believe it is so clear cut? Don't you think that there is a possibility that there was no GPL infringement due to re-writing of code or difficulty of proving in a court of law that something illegal did happen? Don't you think that if presented with a robust defense that a judge might actually think that not enough evidence is there or that there was no violation? I don't say that in jest but really would be interested in what you think.
Well, what I think hardly carries any weight, as I have never seen any of the evidence. But people that have seen the evidence tell me it is close to iron-clad, and I have no reason to disbelieve them. So I suppose the defendant is guilty as charged, and hence that there is a very high probability for a conviction, should the case go to court. Of course we all know that the guilty sometimes walk free, and many innocent persons have gotten the chair in the past. The system is not perfect. But that does not mean I should not anticipate the correct outcome.
Let me ask you; since Rybka was found to contain Fruit and Crafty codes, and a specific rule of the ICGA (which happens to align with GPL & FSF rules in a certain aspect), do you suppose Vas/Rybka broke this specific GPL regulation?
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.
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.
Your conclusion, together with 35 cents, will buy a cup of coffee, nothing more. ICGA has no standing on legal matters. Rest assured, Vas will thumb his nose at this organization with impunity.
To each their own conclusion. But the truth is out for the world to see regarding Fruit+Crafty = Rybka.....
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.
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.
Most people haven't really cared about what the ICGA did in the past, and won't really care what they do in the future. There is also no reason to think that Vas will suffer because of their bizarre behavior. As long as he stays focused on building better products and keeps his relationship with his distributors strong, he'll be fine.
![[hr]](/mwf/v12/flags/hr.png "Croatia")
+1
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