Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Letters and trophies
1 2 Previous Next  
- - By Ugh (*****) Date 2013-09-07 19:29
Is there anybody, apart from the usual suspects with gained trophies, who still believes the process used to convict Vas was designed to be fair, or was fair?
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-08 07:25 Edited 2013-09-08 08:43
Bob did not gain a trophy and considers the process to be perfect in every way and a model for all other investigations everywhere! :lol:
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-08 14:36
Since the investigation had nothing to do with trophies, who cares???

Never was mentioned during the investigation, no "trophy evidence" was included in any of the panel evidence or report.  This is the usual straw man argument...
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-08 14:59
Sure. It was just a very, very strange coincidence that the two guys pushing for the investigation, Mark and Stephan, both had trophies to gain.

Not everybody is as stupid as you are...
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-08 15:47
There were not "the two guys".  There were 15 or so.  You seem to overlook important details when posting distortions...
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-08 21:54
The two guys that got the others to sign the letter were Stephan and Mark, you stupid ugly redneck.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 00:29
You stupid moron, 15 people signed the letter.  Stephan and Mark didn't hold a gun to anyone's head.   Fabien had inititated the process.  A total of 15 people thought it was appropriate.  Period.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 00:47
You're full of shit! People signed the letter after being urged to do so by Stephan and Mark, who incidentally were looking to win trophies for past events. There is no indication that Fabien initiated the process. In fact, the accusations seem to have been brought to his attention, probably by Stephan and Mark.

Not coincidentally, Mark sent you an email requesting that you sign the letter (Stephan was copied of course). Of course you didn't, because you already knew that you had a higher calling as the Chief Inquisitor.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 03:15
They signed the letter.  They believed wrong had been done.  There had been evidentiary discussions for a couple of years.  NOBODY was forced to sign...

Did you see the letter Fabien wrote?
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 04:45
If Fabien believed his license or copyright had been infringed he was free to take any actions he saw fit. If he thought that working with the ICGA would help him collect damages, he was sadly mistaken.

Stephan and Mark were in it to win past trophies that they couldn't even come close to winning over the board. They were the ones that passed the letter around and encouraged others to sign it. They did this because it was in their self interest to do so. They were helped by a Useful Idiot named Bob who had been dreaming of leading this investigation for many years.
Parent - - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-09-09 10:50
Here is my correspondence with Fabien, now you know all.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 13:32
Sort of shoots down the claim of "the great one".  That Fabien had no idea what was happening.

Of course most of his stuff goes down in flames anyway, because he simply does not know what he's talking about.

BTW, to "the great one."  Fabien DID contact the FSF, remember?  He did originate his complaint to the ICGA.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 14:13
It's too bad that you have the reading comprehension skills of a second grader.

Here is what Fabien wrote to Ed:

The letter is from Mark Uniacke and SMK.
Here's a forward of an email they sent to Bob.

You might or might not be interested in an official complaint to the ICGA.
I was actually the one to suggest we also ask Chrilly and you.

Fabien.


What part of this simple message don't you understand?

Fabien DID contact the FSF, remember?

Oh, yes. You claimed multiple times that the FSF would help convict Vas of violating the GPL. How is that going? Maybe you can help them by sending them your newest brain dead legal theory that taking detailed notes is equivalent to copying code? But they will probably respond that they don't need help from an imbecile like you.

He did originate his complaint to the ICGA.

Sorry. This is not what the record shows. The instigators here were clearly Mark Uniacke and SMK, and they were helped by a Useful Idiot named Bob who had been dreaming of being the Grand Inquisitor for this investigation for many years.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 15:07
I did NOT claim the FSF would convict Vas.  I claimed they were LOOKING at the issue.  We know that for a fact, because they contacted Mark Watkins and met with him.  What's happened since, I don't know, nor do I care.  The FSF is the FSF.  We represented the ICGA.

Did you read the letter?

Fabien wrote:  You might or might not be interested in an official complaint to the ICGA.  I was actually the one to suggest we also ask Chrilly and you

So HE suggested that it be sent to Donninger and Ed.  Yet you want to claim Mark and Stefan were the "ring-leaders".
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 17:16
I did NOT claim the FSF would convict Vas.

First, let's review some of your numerous clueless posts on this issue where you certainly did claim that the FSF would help convict Vas:

Vas may well have his day in court if the FSF considers it worthwhile to pursue copyright/GPL infringement.  Part of that could be criminal, part civil.

For the FSF should they decide to pursue this in Federal court, they will have no problem.

I would not bet any money on that statement.  And the FSF might well end up proving you wrong.  David forwarded the report to them, if they choose to follow up, it _will_ be in court...

Believe what you want...  If this happens to end up in court, it will be a "slam dunk".  But we won't know until it happens.  Let's just wait on the FSF and Fabien to make that decision.

Just watch.  FSF gets involved, wins in court, the ICGA decision will _still_ be wrong...

There is no amicably with the FSF.  You conform to their rules, or sit in court.  Not a friendly "let's have a drink and chat about this at all."  You have no clue.

The infringer either complies with the GPL, or it goes to court, _period_.  If you call that "amicable" you don't understand the term.  They don't "agree" or modify the GPL or anything else.  The infringer either complies or is forced to do so.

copyright laws are also clear, as is the GPL addition.  Did he violate those?  We did not directly address that.  Apparently the FSF is pondering that issue now.  If they choose to pursue it, we will know their view.  If the court agrees with them, then we will have a binding legal opinion.

The FSF has, however, told Fabien via email that they _are_ now interested in going forward, as one of their compliance engineers looked at the report(s) on the ICGA wiki and called them "convincing."
Perhaps they will follow through and then this gets settled once and for all, although I have already seen the beginnings of excuse-making with comments like "The FSF has friends in a lot of court jurisdictions" in preparation for the inevitable "Vas is innocent, the FSF's reputation is what got them the guilty verdict."  We just have to wait for that to play out since they now seem "real interested."

License Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation (to Fabien) wrote:I reviewed the analysis of the similarities between Fruit and Rybka, and found it pretty compelling. I think this is something that we could absolutely pursue as a compliance case. I'm guessing you've met with the ICGA researchers by now [...]
So it seems that they might proceed here.

It's preposterous (using your word) to believe this won't go to court solely because it is to technical for the average person to understand.  If FSF chooses to continue, and it now looks like they will, your "theory" might be tested.  --and found 'wanting'.

It appears that there will be a court case.  But Mark won't be the defendant.  Nor I.  That chair has Vas' name on it, if you believe the FSF compliance engineer's statement.

FSF is an organization that handles the GPL issues that arise.  They have compliance engineers that look at accusations of GPL/copyright violation and investigate them to see if there is enough evidence to pursue it.  If there is, the FSF has attorneys that specialize in copyright law.  They will file a case in the correct jurisdiction and then will serve as the plantiff's representative at the trial.  The trial will be in a real court, technically called "a court of competent jurisdiction" with a real judge.  Whether there is a jury or not depends on the significance of the claim.  One can get (or ask for) a bench trial (judge only) or a jury trial.  Where this one would be filed I have no idea.  I suppose that will become apparent as time passes.

George, this will be done in a federal courtroom if the case is filed in the US.  You lie on the stand, you will go to jail.  So I don't know what you are talking about.  The FSF is not their own "legal system".  Just a group of people that enforce the GPL / copyright license by taking violators to court...  Penalties for copyright violation include fines and/or jail time.  Ditto for perjury.

The FSF will investigate to decide whether to proceed or not.  Their preliminary investigation suggested that they should.  If they investigate further and decide that this should go to court, it will.  Like it or not.  And the evidence will be evaluated by the court.  And you may or may not like the decision.

Fabien felt as if his code was used against his GPL license requirements, the FSF is looking into it, so we will get the truth.  I mean, you guys have been _demanding_ this for months now.  You are getting what you asked for.  And the ICGA has nothing to to with that end of things...  So, are you happy that you may well get what you asked for (a legal opinion from a court) or do you wish it had stopped with the ICGA decision?  You DO have to pick a side on some issues...

Otherwise, the Fruit/Rybka issue is just as clear today as it was back then.  It has been revealed elsewhere that the FSF is moving ahead with this, so how about just waiting to see what the courts end up saying?  That will be a real test of the ICGA process...  Certainly a better one than what goes on here...


The FSF is pursuing this and it would certainly be better to just get into compliance with their license as quickly as possible, and avoid dealing with courts, lawyers, and such.  That won't change the ICGA ruling on past versions being impermissible in ICGA events, but it could certainly avoid the civil/legal issues that the FSF might pursue.
I'd be extremely happy to see this end, now.  But I have no control over the FSF nor the courts.  Only one that can derail this train before it wrecks is Vas.  Hopefully he is at least reading the forum so he will know what is coming down the pipe if something isn't done pretty soon.


If this isn't resolved before the FSF causes this to land in court, they will certainly look at the code to see if it is clean, and resolve at least the later versions with regard to being OK or not.

It appears there will be a court case no matter what, that will hopefully clear everything up as to the data the ICGA panel produced.

There are two separate issues.  (1) was GPL violated?  (2) was code copied and used in an engine breaking rule 2.  Both of those questions have some common ground.  In the case of the ICGA, if code from Fruit shows up in Rybka, Rybka is considered non-compliant with the rules and was therefore an illegal entrant.  The GPL issue has the same basis, but a different result.  If GPL code was copied and distributed without the source being distributed, copyright law was violated.  Then the issue switches to money, damages, and so forth.  So the two investigations will walk the same track during the evidentiary phase of the process, but then they diverge and one ends up in a court of law, the other ends up before a board...

The FSF can pursue Vas, and the courts could order him out of this specific area of software development if they so choose, as part of the remedy to the FSF case, particularly if he claims he can't produce the source for any of the old versions.

Clearly the FSF, if they go forward as they say they are, will primarily insist on open source code for the versions that have been sold and proven to contain copyrighted code of others.  If that source is not available, they could demand that later source codes be provided, or seek real civil/legal remedies.

They likely will contact distributors to get an idea of total sales (not $, but #).  Then they will review the stuff from the ICGA, do whatever they choose to "vet" that data and perhaps develop even more, then they would likely contact Vas and try to resolve it outside of court.  If that fails, on to court

Should the FSF get to court, and should the court find no infringement, that won't change the ICGA decision at all.

I believe that if the FSF goes to court, they will win.

I am pretty sure the FSF is going to pursue it.  Whether it goes to court or not will be totally up to Vas.  If he agrees to comply with their terms, probably not.  If he continues to stonewall everyone, absolutely it will end up in court...

I'd suspect that if this is not settled, FSF will compel him to give them the latest source to verify that it is clean.  Since they are a neutral party, the court would be very likely to order that.

They may well matter to the FSF.  I'd hoped this would not reach the courtroom, but perhaps it is best that it does.  As if/when it does, there is not much doubt that the court will find for the FSF, and perhaps THAT will stop these nonsensical arguments that have no technical basis behind them at all...


I told you "If the FSF / court doesn't find him guilty of copyright violation, I will still consider him guilty of copying code and breaking ICGA rule 2."

Sorry, but the FSF does BOTH.  If they prove, in court, that the copyright was violated, they can certainly ask for the program to be brought into compliance with the GPL.  But Fabien can ALSO ask the court for relief, either criminally or civilly, as he chooses.

You realize we are talking about copyright disputes here.  FSF can ask Vas to come into compliance, but since he is NOT in compliance, they and/or Fabien CAN take this right to court, where both civil and criminal penalties are possible.  If you don't believe that, fine.  Perhaps you will get to see first-hand as this progresses.

FSF WILL go to court.  Most choose to settle once that happens.

The FSF is a group of lawyers that can, if they choose, bring this issue before the court for a "legal ruling."  The only ruling the FSF will make is "Yes, we think this violates GPL and we are going to take it to court";  or "Yes, we think this violates GPL but Vas has agreed to come into GPL compliance making a court case unnecessary";  or "No, we don't think this violates GPL, we are going to take no action at all."
Parent - By Venator (Silver) Date 2013-09-09 18:14
:lol: :lol: :lol:

This one is even funnier than your long post about Hyatt claims regarding his rotated bitboard code!
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 17:20
Did you read the letter?

Yes. Did you? Did you notice that Mark and Fabien have very different writing styles and that this letter was written by Mark and not by Fabien?

Fabien wrote:  You might or might not be interested in an official complaint to the ICGA.  I was actually the one to suggest we also ask Chrilly and you

So HE suggested that it be sent to Donninger and Ed.  Yet you want to claim Mark and Stefan were the "ring-leaders".


Are you really that stupid? Mark wrote the letter and Fabien suggested sending it to Chrilly and Ed. Understand? And yes, Mark and Stefan were the instigators.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 19:16
Even though Fabien was telling them who to send the letter to?  You have a wild and distorted imagination...
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 19:22
Even though Fabien was telling them who to send the letter to?  You have a wild and distorted imagination...

I have a knack for the obvious, which you lack.

IF Fabien had written the letter (and it's clear that he didn't), he wouldn't have had to ask Mark to send it to Chrilly and Ed. He would have just done it. BECAUSE Mark wrote the letter, Fabien had to ask.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 19:31
If Fabien was not interested, he would NOT have suggested they send the letter to others, eh?

stop and think every now and then, rather than trying to distort in any way possible...
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 20:32
Don't be such an idiot!

Nobody suggested that Fabien wasn't interested. But Fabien did NOT write the letter. Mark wrote the letter. Fabien suggested having Mark's letter sent to Chrilly and Ed. Even a dimwit like you should be able to follow this simple and obvious sequence of events.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 21:43
You wrote this:

You're full of shit! People signed the letter after being urged to do so by Stephan and Mark, who incidentally were looking to win trophies for past events. There is no indication that Fabien initiated the process. In fact, the accusations seem to have been brought to his attention, probably by Stephan and Mark.

Fabien wrote his "open letter" well before the protest was filed...   If you look, Fabien's original letter was dated January 23.  WELL before the protest letter dated March 2011.  Sort of blows the hell out of your statement above, eh?"  Fabien's letter was referenced in that March letter:  "Recently the author of Fruit, Fabien Letouzey, wrote an open letter to the computer chess community where he raised the concern that Rybka 1.0 beta may be a derivative of Fruit 2.1 in this public post: http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37762"

Maybe you will get something right one day, be a huge change...  But then again, probably not.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 22:37
Incredibly, you've pointed to a page where you told Fabien that large chunks of Fruit were copied into Rybka:

If you look at my previous comments, "similarity" is "identical code". The entire program was not copied. But large chunks were. That _is_ proof of code copying...

Since large chunks were copied, but not everything, I chose to not say "identical" to be accurate. But they are _very_ similar. Moreso when you factor out the bitboard changes...

Robert Hyatt Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 1:04 am


Question: Can you show us some of those large chunks of code?
Answer: No, you cannot, because they don't exist.

It's no wonder that Fabien agreed to go ahead with his action after the all the bullshit that you fed him. Mark wrote a nice letter, and you arranged with David to head up the secretariat. You are as sleazy as they come.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 23:50
Your point would be?  You were wrong.  Fabien STARTED the process, not Mark/Stefan.  So now you see you are wrong and want to bait and switch to a new topic, quietly?  :)

just go away...
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 23:56
Fabien didn't know even know about it until it was brought to his attention. Then he was convinced by your lies about "chunks of copied code". Mark and Stefan wrote a letter and persuaded other programmers to sign it. Then the ICGA set up an investigation with a dimwit who was already telling people that Vas was guilty as head of the secretariat and Grand Inquisitor.

But it didn't work! Crafty is still a shitty chess engine!
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-10 00:37
So?  Fabien did not "find out about it from Mark/Stefan" as you claimed, eh?
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-10 02:36
Is that important? No, I didn't think so. Sounds like he heard about it from Dann! :lol: But it's most likely he was convinced by your lies about "large chunks of copied code". Remember those? The ones you referred people to the start of Zach's paper to see?

But we digress. Mark and Stefan wrote the paper and sent it around for signatures of other programmers, and Fabien suggested sending it to Chrilly and Ed. They sent it to you too, but you already knew you had a higher purpose as the Grand Wizard...
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-10 15:09
Fabien was originally asked to look at an early Strelka.  That is what STARTED Zach and Christophe looking into the Rybka 1.0 beta, once Vas claimed Strelka to be HIS code.  Fabien (in January 2011) re-looked at Strelka and noticed many more similarities.  He originally thought "this is a rewritten fruit, converted to bitboards, with a few new ideas tossed in".  In looking more carefully, he noticed "this is a LOT of rewritten fruit, converted to bitboards, with a few new ideas tossed in."

He wrote his open letter.  two months before the formal protest was done.  Fabien was not "out of the loop" as you want to imply.
Parent - - By user923005 (****) Date 2013-09-10 16:56
Fabian told me that one of the routines in the original strelka had an obscure French name that would make sense to someone French.  Seems an odd choice for someone from the Soviet.  Especially for a routine in a chess program.

However we should also consider Osipov's explanation.  According to my understanding he took the ideas he reverse engineered from Rybak and stitched them to a Fruitlike framework (he did this, IIRC, because he thought Rybka was similar to Fruit). 
So the uncanny Fruit resemblance of Strelka might make Rybka seem more fruitlike that it really is due to the methods of construction.

He also added the Winboard interface from Beowulf (of all things).  The Winboard interface was used verbatim (literal cut and paste).  I did not think it was significant, so I conferred with Colin and we gave him permission to use it.

Now, after the facts are plain, it appears to me that Rybka was illegally reverse engineered {though I think it is likely that Osipov did not know it was illegal} and that was the start of Pandora's box.  It's kind of ironic because you would think that making chess engines play 100-200 Elo better would be good for computer chess.  But I think the path computer chess took to get there did enormous damage.  Especially, since this ill-gotten knowledge seemed necessary in order to compete, people felt somewhat forced to use it.
Parent - By Labyrinth (*****) Date 2013-09-10 18:08
I wonder if all of this could have been avoided, like if Fabien and Vas could have just talked it out.

I mean, have they ever communicated significantly about this?
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-10 18:19
Fabian told me that one of the routines in the original strelka had an obscure French name that would make sense to someone French.  Seems an odd choice for someone from the Soviet.  Especially for a routine in a chess program.

However we should also consider Osipov's explanation.  According to my understanding he took the ideas he reverse engineered from Rybak and stitched them to a Fruitlike framework (he did this, IIRC, because he thought Rybka was similar to Fruit).
So the uncanny Fruit resemblance of Strelka might make Rybka seem more fruitlike that it really is due to the methods of construction.


If you look at some of Fabien's early comments, he seems to feel the use of the same names in Strelka is significant, but of course Vas took out the symbol table, so these were all put in by Yuri.

Now, after the facts are plain, it appears to me that Rybka was illegally reverse engineered {though I think it is likely that Osipov did not know it was illegal} and that was the start of Pandora's box.

I'm not sure what the laws are with respect to reverse engineering in Russia, or even if they have any laws...
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-10 18:24
Here's the problem with your reasoning.  Look at Fruit.  If Strelka does not have a nearly identical procedure call framework, you can't map fruit names to strelka code.  I could give you all the Crafty procedure names, for instance, and they simply will not map to strelka/fruit.

The issue here is "parentage".  For example, Richard pointed out how easy it was to RE houdini, because he had the robo* source handy and they are almost identical.  Yuri noticed the same similarity with Fruit.  Which no doubt helped a lot.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-10 18:36
Nonsense. Yuri morphed Rybka with Fruit to save himself time in developing his own baseline, which he planned to go commercial with. This was not a trivial task for him as it was for Richard with Houdini and Robolito.

It should be noted that several top notch engine developers, including Chrilly and Anthony, went through Strelka's code forward and backward without noting unusual similarities with Fruit. In fact, both claimed it wasn't similar. You were the only one to see "large chunks of copied code" which nobody else, including the FSF, can locate...
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-10 18:38
You can't morph a into b if there are no points of similarity.  Pure nosense.  If the program structure is close, the procedure calls can be mapped.  If not, they can not be mapped.  it IS that simple...
Parent - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-10 18:50
You can't morph a into b if there are no points of similarity.  Pure nosense.

That's your idiotic take on things. Of course there were points of similarity as there are with any chess engine, and Yuri spent a long time generating this framework. In this case there were more points of similarity because Vas "went through Fruit forward and backward and took many things".

Of course you also claimed there were "large chunks of copied code" that nobody else can find...
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-10 18:28
He wrote his open letter. 

I did not claim that Fabien was out of the loop. But he didn't write the open letter. Mark wrote the open letter, and Mark and Stefan were in charge of getting people to sign the letter, and they made the decision to publish it as an open letter rather than sending it to David. Fabien suggested that they include Chrilly and Ed on the distribution list.

Of course you helped this process along by declaring Vas guilty of copying "large chunks of code" prior to the start of the investigation. In the ICGA's world, this made you a natural to lead the investigation! :lol:
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-10 18:33
Sorry, WRONG.  Fabien wrote the letter that was posted on CCC in January, 2011.  Here the date, and the link:

Started like this:

PostPost subject: Fabien's open letter to the community    Posted: Sun Jan 23, 2011 3:13 pm   Reply to topic Reply with quote Report Post
My good friend Fabien Letouzey, author of Fruit, asked me to post the following message for him:

Quote:
Hello,

Long time no see.

First, I am not back to computer chess, sorry about that. I just want to clarify a few things. Sorry if that's old but there is some misunderstanding I need to fix, and I found out only yesterday. Bear in mind that I am mostly unaware of what has happened for five years though.


You can find it here:

http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=37762

That was Fabien's "open letter to the CCC community"
Parent - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-10 18:39
I was referring to the open letter that Mark wrote that was signed by the fourteen programmers.
Parent - By Rebel (****) Date 2013-09-09 17:57
Maybe you can help them by sending them your newest brain dead legal theory that taking detailed notes is equivalent to copying code?

:grin::grin:
Parent - By Venator (Silver) Date 2013-09-09 18:36
Maybe you can help them by sending them your newest brain dead legal theory that taking detailed notes is equivalent to copying code?

LOL! You clearly hit top form today :lol:
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 14:26
The email below clearly shows that the letter itself was penned by Mark and Stefan, and signed by Fabien. As the authors, they had the last say on the method of distribution (open forum) and whether the letter would be sent directly to David or not.

Hi Ed,



> Okay, you can put my name under the document. Provided I receive a
> copy of the email to David so I can elaborate my position to David,
> just in case I feel the need.


Bear in mind that Mark Uniacke and SMK want the letter to be open.  It will be posted on CC fora.  In case this is a problem for you, no worries.  If not, we can probably arrange for any condition you feel necessary prior to your signing the letter.  But there is some possibility that no email is sent to David.  I can ask Mark or put you in direct contact with him (or SMK).

> ...


> So I hope the ICGA will take away all his WC titles until he will
> have done his GPL duties.


I laughed out loud at this one :)

Fabien.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 19:17
Notice each of those says "might" or "could".  NEVER "will".

Learn to read...  quit assuming.   You look foolish.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 19:23
FSF WILL go to court.  Most choose to settle once that happens.

Bob Hyatt


Oops!
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 19:30
Context or typical ED distortion?  :)
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 20:44
No. Just another example of your piss poor memory:

Topic Accusations on Vas & Rybka are out of jealousy & frustration By bob Date 2011-09-22 20:19
They filed suit in court.  My point.  FSF WILL go to court.  Most choose to settle once that happens.

Your point would be???
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 21:37
There you go.  I said "FSF will go to court in some cases."  NOT directed at the rybka/fruit case.

Once again, you get caught with distortions.  What a loser...

I didn't say "They WILL take Vas to court, now did I?"  Exaggeration.  Distortion.  Out-of-context.  Typical.
Parent - - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 22:54
You're a stinking liar, so let's add another quote:

I am pretty sure the FSF is going to pursue it.  Whether it goes to court or not will be totally up to Vas.  If he agrees to comply with their terms, probably not.  If he continues to stonewall everyone, absolutely it will end up in court...

Robert Hyatt

They filed suit in court.  My point.  FSF WILL go to court.  Most choose to settle once that happens.

Your point would be???

Robert Hyatt


Of course the FSF didn't pursue it. Why not? Maybe because you were lying when you told them that large chunks were copied. We're still waiting to see those large chunks.
Parent - - By bob (Gold) Date 2013-09-09 23:49
"I am pretty sure".   != "They WILL".  You are the liar, not me.  You keep trying to change the meaning of my words in a way that is obviously wrong.  Who KNOWS what the FSF has done or will do?  I don't.  I am certain you don't.  You just pretend to know, for whatever ego kick that gives you.  Doesn't work with me, however.
Parent - By Banned for Life (Gold) Date 2013-09-10 00:04
You are one stupid redneck! There are two posts. In the first post you claimed:

I am pretty sure the FSF is going to pursue it.  Whether it goes to court or not will be totally up to Vas.  If he agrees to comply with their terms, probably not.  If he continues to stonewall everyone, absolutely it will end up in court...

Robert Hyatt


In the second post you claimed:

They filed suit in court.  My point.  FSF WILL go to court.  Most choose to settle once that happens.

Robert Hyatt


Its all there in black and white!!! But maybe if you deny it enough times, people will believe you...
Parent - By turbojuice1122 (Gold) Date 2013-09-10 01:35

> I said "FSF will go to court in some cases."


I don't see where you have said this or implied this with the important "in some cases" qualifier.  It appears, at least at first glance, that you're just trying to cover up for your own stupid statements, yet again.  Yet another bob lie?  Perhaps you can point us to where you at least clearly implied this qualifier, as you can see from the previous link that the quote itself obviously doesn't exist.  (Hence, it is a lie to put this in quotations followed by the word "said" without qualifiers.)
Up Topic Rybka Support & Discussion / Rybka Discussion / Letters and trophies
1 2 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill