From KasparovChess forum:
Youri Osipov wrote:
Vas: I've taken a look this morning at the Strelka 2.0 sources.
In early december Vasik already had the source code of the last version of Strelka. He himself wrote about this in rybkaforum.
Vas: Vast sections of these sources started their life as a decompiled Rybka 1.0.
If this is true then I am a genius. Thanks for the compliments.
Vas: The traces of this are everywhere.
Everyone who looked at the source code of Strelka came to conclusion that "everywhere" there is traces of Fruit. Or Rybka contains Fruit too?
Vas: The board representation is identical...
It's easy to see that "board representation is identical" to Fruit with changing some parts to bitboard.
Vas: ... and all sorts of absolutely unique Rybka code methods, bitboard tricks...
Noone found in Strelka some unique code methods or bitboard tricks. Just the contrary, everyone is thinking that there is nothing unusual or outstanding.
Vas: ... and even exact data tables are used throughout.
If he means the data tables from emater.c file, there is no such data tables in Rybka -- I have checked it. And everyone can check it scanning Rybka's exe. In Strelka there is no other big data tables.
Vas: Significant portions of the search and evaluation logic are not fully disassembled...
Then how it works if it is not fully disassembled?
Vas: ... he hasn't yet fully understood what is happening.
I guess, everyone understood the logic of the program (except me and Vasik may be?)
Vas: Rybka's UCI string are used throughout.
I'm not a masochist to disassemble UCI-block of Rybka when there is fine written Fruit.
Vas: The author did at first make attempts to hide the Rybka origins, for example by masking the table values in earlier Strelka versions.
Does it mean that source code of the earlier versions of Streka was known to Vasik? Then why he kept silence for so long?
After this there is a paragraph about differences between Strelka and Rybka. And again -- differences are found "everywhere". Question: what is more -- differences or identities?
Vas: In light of the above, I am claiming Strelka 2.0 as my own and will release it in the next few days under my own name.
Your welcome. I had not declared anywhere nor I had registered the copyright of Strelka. I had not restricted the use of Strelka with no any licenses. So everybody can declare himself as the author of Strelka. You can claim yourself as Napoleon too, if you wish so.
Vas: The name of the author with the pen name "Osipov" will be included...
How can I prove that me is me? How can I prove that I'm existing in real, and my real name is Yuri Ivanovich Osipov? I can show my ID-card. Or may be arrange a confrontation.
Vas: However, 'Osipov' has already threatened to repeat the procedure with Rybka 2.3.2a.
When I was talking about such thing?
Vas: He did this after I declined to grant him rights to commercialize Strelka.
I never intent to release commercial Strelka. Convekta has had such an idea, but this idea got Vasik's veto. I have no any relation with this. And I have absolutely no regrets that this project was not carried out. I preffer to be free person.
Vas: ... if someone has information about 'Osipov', please get in touch with me.
Vasik, accept my invitation and be my guest. Come, I'll be glad to meet you, to talk and to drink some cup of tea together. I am absolutely ordinary person, not Monte Cristo.
/* Steinar */
On the positive side, given that Osipov has said there is no copyright on his code, it sounds (as usual as a non-lawyer) safe to me for Vas to re-release Strelka 2.0 beta under GPL. (Even if there is code from Fruit in there, Fruit is already under the GPL.)
I'd actually much rather have Rybka 1.0 beta unaltered as GPL, but this isn't a world where you get to pick such things without paying for them. :-)
/* Steinar */
If anything is of interest here it is the question "Where is source code for Strelka 1.0 (all the way up to 2.0)?". Osipov should release the code for all versions the same way he did for 2.0 ... since he has already admitted to have used Fruit then there is nothing to lose by him releasing the source code for Strelka 1.x. (If nothing else at least we will get to see how exactly he used the Fruit code to arrive at something so drastically different from Fruit in: code size, structure, and chess performance)
The more Osipov talks the worst it gets (for him).
> There's an interesting point here -- if he admits to have used large parts of Fruit, is not Strelka automatically under GPL?
Your use of "large" is unfortunate... one point of the (GNU) GPL is that size should not matter. In any case, there seems to be a transient confusion as to what a "Fruit derivative" means - common parlance might construe this to include merely using the ideas of Fruit, while the proper technical definition under copyright law would more likely mean that it must (at some point in its history) share actual code, not just ideas. A while back, the canonical Strelka-land line was to quote VR: "I went through the Fruit 2.1 source code forwards and backwards and took many things" - and thus one could conclude as desired.
The copyright consists of four different categories. One of them, the most straightforward, is based on actually copying the material. Another category, much less straightforward, is in copying the overall concept. An example of a precedent for this would be the recent (unsuccessful) attempt by another author to take credit for "The Da Vinci Code".
/* Steinar */
What this GPL stuff means?
If author of Strelka took Fruit and modified it to make stronger chess engine (and used a lot code from Fruit, which is under GPL) then
does it mean that he has to publish source of Strelka as well if he wants to distribute binaries?
or what this GPL licence means?
I know that it is quite usual to reuse / or copy code from different sources when you are coding something. You save a lot of time doing so because you don't need to code many basic routines or datatructures. But does this GPL mean that if I use any code that is under GPL I have to publish my own source code as well?
BTW. Greetings from Moscow. Nice city and nice country.
/* Steinar */
It's good that Vas is at least doing something, but hopefully he can end things before they get really bad. He should pursue this guy who calls himself Osipov, and who may actually be none other than WildCat's author Igor Korshunov; there have been several recent things that have lead me to this belief, including some stuff on the various fora. Hopefully at least this part gets cleared up soon.
> This is part of the game. Every move is choreographed before hand. Their intention is to spin Vas into a circle. I would ignore any further communications from this group. What you are failing to understand is that this is not the work of one person. This is the work of a well oiled group of people whose intentions are to cripple Rybka.
+1. Just ignore THEM. It's just a trap to thwart the development of 3.0
Hmmm...an invitation to drink tea with this type of guy--does something like that count as a threat?
Maybe not, but this sure seems to:
Or may be arrange a confrontation.
Vas, if you meet him, can I please come along as a "bodyguard"? Pleeeaase? It's been years since I've had a good boxing match--in fact, it hasn't been since my old boxing club disbanded. Don't worry, though--I've been practicing some, and I'm definitely in better shape now than I was then! :-D This could be so much fun!
This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.
A fundamental right of a defendant in a criminal action to come face to face with an adverse witness in the court's presence so the defendant has a fair chance to object to the testimony of the witness and the opportunity to cross-examine the witness.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill