First, let me thank you (and simultaneously self-correct myself) for the very Robbolito version in discussion: Robbolito 0.085g
3. I tend to just end at the "g", which I shouldn't do.
ThinkingALot wrote:
It has been proven solidly that Houdini is an Ippolit derivative. In order to prove that it's based on 0.85g3 (and not on some public domain Robbo like 0.85d3) one need to find a piece of code which is
1) not some obvious public domain stuff like PV output format or bitscan/popcnt functions;
2) present in 0.85g3;
3) absent in 0.85d3 and every other public domain Ippolit/Robbo or Ivanhoe. Every one.
Do you see now why it's impossible to prove?
Exactly why Robert Houdart needs to release the source code of Houdini from 1.0 up to 1.5a. If I'm not mistaken, Robert Houdart had promised to do just that but later decided against it(I can't pull up the specific thread backing this up, for now). My point?.....when evidence linked Houdini to RobboLito 0.085g3, RH knew that the charade was over because it's virtually impossible for one's engine to produce the EXACT same PV outputs, analysis, and even choice-moves - as Houdini did/does when compared to its parent Ippo/RobboLito - unless codes were copied verbatim. The codes copied happened to be copied FROM RobboLito 0.085g3. Way beyond just getting "ideas" as he selectively professes in his Houdini web site.
That's why, IMHO, talented individuals like Richard Vida et.al who caught what RH was doing and exposing it should be thanked. Keep in mind, RV said he will NOT release Robbodini source code. Not to mention Kai, Kingliveson, and others who compared PV/Analysis/move outputs of Houdini to that of R0.085g3. In fact as we now know, the Robbodini bet was to prove that H3 still contains codes FROM Robbolito 0.085g3 and how easy it was to RE H3 using it's parent code; Robbolito. "Perfect" or "close resemblance" RE-ing would have been nil to impossible IF Houdini was original. That was the whole point of Robbodini, unless I'm mistken in my interpretations of recent event. Quite contrary to the notion that H2 or H3 is "Scott free" from Robbolito 0.085g3.
ThinkingALot wrote:Some of these improvements are already present in 0.85d3. Some are trivial. Some are obviously absent in Houdini 2.0+. And a skilled programmer can implement all of them in a day.
Then WHY did RH go after a [GPL] refined Robbolito 0.085g3 and not stick with 0.085d3 that was Public Domain and free of any legal obligations/compliance? What Kranium & Sentinel did was not trivial. And they also added bug fixes and features which is WHAT made Robbolito 0.085g3 a lot better & smoother than its Public Domain predecessors - and even still better than its newer version, R0.09. In the event he (RH) chose to use "the" GPL code, then proper
Code: Select all
attribution AND compliance of the said GPL-code should be adhered to. Neither of which Robert Houdart has done to this day...
Somehow I get the sense that most people, including RH, feels that producing a stronger, multi-threaded Robbolito version entitles him to break GPL of Robbolito 0.085g3 and absolve him from any legal/ethical consequences. Might work in RH's world. Not going to work in ANY real-life court.