Bob asks: Then why don't YOU come up with a rule 2?

[BB+]

Harvey - The ICGA have forwarded the report to the FSF.

The FSF was (and still is) the owner of Fruit, as Letouzey had indicated (both publicly, and to the ICGA). The Rybka case involved someone entering a non-original work based on Fruit into an ICGA event. Given these data, I'm not sure why the ICGA shouldn't have forwarded the report to the FSF?! Should the ICCA not have contacted Hegener & Glaser if one of their products had been involved in an investigation (eg, Langer case)? If the ICGA had forwarded their report to the SFLC (the legal arm of the FSF), perhaps as a trumping of the FSF doing an investigation themselves, then I would agree it would be unwarranted.

But the FSF tries to negotiate, they care more about making the whole world "open source" more than anything else (they call it "education"), and only resort to the SFLC when the circumstances require.

When the FSF pursues GPL compliance cases, our end goal is to have the party continue distributing whatever software they're currently distributing, but to comply with the GPL when they do so -- by making sure that all of the software is available under the GPL's terms, that they provide source code through one of the mechanisms listed in the license, and so on. Our goal is not to simply have the violator cease their activity, or to seek monetary damages (although we do seek compensation for the time we spend pursuing the case).

We have a standard form letter that we use to start these discussions, and try to engage the violator in a productive conversation about what steps they need to take to come into compliance with the license. If the violator is unresponsive or uncooperative, we get the Software Freedom Law Center involved.

The FSF reviewed the analysis of the similarities between Fruit and Rybka, and found it pretty compelling, with it being something that we could absolutely pursue as a compliance case. They then asked for the contact details of the Rybka authors, and things proceeded from there.

with Fabien's FSF intimidation (GPL breach)

The Programmer's Open Letter does not mention the FSF, only that Fruit was publicly released open-source under the GPL license. Letouzey's open letter does not mention either the FSF or the GPL. I don't know where all this "intimidation" came from, maybe some echo chamber on the Rybka forum (who were constantly worried about others "peeking at Vas' source code").

and later the complaint to the FSF itself

It would sort of defeat the purpose of the GPL if one did not complain when it was thought to be broken. Moreover, given that ownership had been transferred to the FSF, it would become even more proper to do so.

[from the above actions] isn't it clear that [Letouzey] really believed his conjecture [that Rajlich copied code, not just ideas]?

Most people believe their conjectures to some degree. Else they would not make them in the first place. Whether Letouzey thought it was 51% likely, or 80% likely, or 95%+ likely, I don't know. He might also have taken the above actions merely if he believed that Rybka had just "rewritten Fruit with different words" (in the sense of a translation). See LOOP for instance.

1. You first try to solve things in private.

This is what the FSF does too (either when they are themselves the owners, or on behalf of the owners [though they admit they have much less legal sway in such cases]). Then, after some rounds of negotiating, if you are still not willing to comply with the GPL, they pass the case on to the SFLC, who then initiate action with the distributors. It is only in extreme cases that they go public with any details.

This program (LION++) is based on the source code of Fruit, and was disqualified because this kind of derivative work is not allowed by the rules of the ICGA tournaments.

The same person who wrote the above on the ICGA page (Coulom), was also on the ICGA Board that found Rybka to be "based on the source code of Fruit" in the sense indicated (Rule #2 originality). Similarly the phrase "this kind of derivative work" refers to Rule #2, and not to "code copying" as you mean it. One might write that Strelka (or IPPOLIT) "is based upon a disassembly of Rybka", and I would guess most people would agree with the statement (even if VR now says they are OK if they re-typed everything themselves). You should really ask Schaeffer or Björnsson regarding whether merely "code copying" or a wider sense of non-originality was the principal determination with LION++ (note that Björnsson was again on the ICGA Board that found Rajlich guilty of plagiarism and breaking Rule #2).

[BB+]

Lion, (Lion++) a multi-processor chess engine by primary author Giancarlo Delli Colli, initially written in Java and later ported to C++ based on the source code of Fruit.

It seems that the program's code was written by Delli Colli (in the Rajlich sense of typing). However, this was not enough for it be "original" in the sense of Rule #2. [Note that Fruit is technically in C++, but is very C-like, and when intertwining/porting with pre-existing Java code, a (much) more object-oriented C++ version of Fruit would likely result].

[Rebel]

As such I don't agree with Levy's comment, "Vas could (should) have known" with respect to the green above. ... [Levy] is responsible for clear rules and the rules weren't clear.

Yes, the infamous "vague" rules argument. Again, there is some responsibility by the entrant (particularly a new member of the community) to seek clarification of any "vague" points. As Jaap said in his LION++ editorial: For long-standing members of our community – we assume – the above the interpretation of the rules is clear. ...So far, we believed that the three-year rule was a rule for the continuity of the membership, now we know that this rule should be interpreted as a rule for familiarisation with the ICGA community.

Yep, the infamous "vague" rules argument.

The LION team had asked a lawyer to look at rule #2 and the lawyer said, it's okay to participate. And then it was not. That's pretty much embarrassing don't you think? If it's not even clear for a lawyer then.......

As for the interpretation of what LION was there are conflicting informations.

Gerd Lion would not have been disqualified in Torino, if they had mentioned "original work based on fruit" in the entry-form with the permission from "co-author" Fabien Letouzey. They had mentioned it in a readme-file and had no explicit permission. They thought it would comply with all formalities and complained issues with english language afterwards.

Christopher Conkie I remember long ago during the WCCC (couple of years or so) that we told everyone that we felt that Lion++ was Togaish.....the rest, as they say is.....history. I can specifically remember having conversations about this with David Levy and I remember SMK looked at the code. It was found to be 80% Fruity IIRC and was disqualified from WCCC.

[hyatt]

As such I don't agree with Levy's comment, "Vas could (should) have known" with respect to the green above. ... [Levy] is responsible for clear rules and the rules weren't clear.

Yes, the infamous "vague" rules argument. Again, there is some responsibility by the entrant (particularly a new member of the community) to seek clarification of any "vague" points. As Jaap said in his LION++ editorial: For long-standing members of our community – we assume – the above the interpretation of the rules is clear. ...So far, we believed that the three-year rule was a rule for the continuity of the membership, now we know that this rule should be interpreted as a rule for familiarisation with the ICGA community.

Yep, the infamous "vague" rules argument.

The LION team had asked a lawyer to look at rule #2 and the lawyer said, it's okay to participate. And then it was not. That's pretty much embarrassing don't you think? If it's not even clear for a lawyer then.......

As for the interpretation of what LION was there are conflicting informations.

Gerd Lion would not have been disqualified in Torino, if they had mentioned "original work based on fruit" in the entry-form with the permission from "co-author" Fabien Letouzey. They had mentioned it in a readme-file and had no explicit permission. They thought it would comply with all formalities and complained issues with english language afterwards.

Christopher Conkie I remember long ago during the WCCC (couple of years or so) that we told everyone that we felt that Lion++ was Togaish.....the rest, as they say is.....history. I can specifically remember having conversations about this with David Levy and I remember SMK looked at the code. It was found to be 80% Fruity IIRC and was disqualified from WCCC.

WHY would it be clear for a lawyer? I doubt if a lawyer could take my Son's mustang and answer the question "Is it OK to race this in the pure stock class up at Steele?"

That is an extremely specious argument. Lawyers interpret LAWS to tell you whether something you did was legal or not. They don't interpret rules to tell you whether your participation is legal or not. Never have, never will.

As far as "conflicting informations" goes, where is the conflict? One says that had they identified Fabien as a co-author AND gotten his permission, they would not have been disqualified. The other says it was disqualified because it was an 80% match. WHAT "conflict" do you see in those statements? They look like perfectly matched opinions to me.

[Rebel]

Harvey - The ICGA have forwarded the report to the FSF.

The FSF was (and still is) the owner of Fruit, as Letouzey had indicated (both publicly, and to the ICGA). The Rybka case involved someone entering a non-original work based on Fruit into an ICGA event. Given these data, I'm not sure why the ICGA shouldn't have forwarded the report to the FSF?! Should the ICCA not have contacted Hegener & Glaser if one of their products had been involved in an investigation (eg, Langer case)?

What has the ICGA to do with the FSF? That's the question. Why did Fabien not do this? I suppose Fabien gave David the person to contact at the FSF? Therefore I would like to see that email, or emails and if Fabien did stick to the deal I made with him.

You see, I didn't ask Fabien these questions (lawsuits, FSF) for nothing before putting my signature under the letter. And I remember you (after the verdict) musing here at open-chess how you met Fabien in Lille (France) and about lawsuits in Poland, you being present as an expert witness. Perhaps you can elaborate about Fabien's role and thoughts in that because that (a lawsuit) is not what I agreed with Fabien. See the mails I posted.

About Hegener & Glaser. Funny that you mention it. It fits very well with the above. Mr. Hegener is a business man, actually the most honorable business man I met in my life. David Levy is a business man as well. And every year Mr. Hegener visited the WCCC for 1 or 2 days to meet his investment (his 3 programmers) and to do business with others.

And then after the games there was dinner. Dinner with David. And they didn't talk about the games played nor did they speculate who was going to be the next world champion. They were doing business, it's what business men do. And I wondered if it is in the profile of a (back then) ICCA official to exploit his position for own financial interests.

The FSF is a non profit organization, it doesn't mean they have no costs, money is always an issue. They have mouth to feed just like the rest of us.

[Rebel]

with Fabien's FSF intimidation (GPL breach)

The Programmer's Open Letter does not mention the FSF, only that Fruit was publicly released open-source under the GPL license. Letouzey's open letter does not mention either the FSF or the GPL. I don't know where all this "intimidation" came from, maybe some echo chamber on the Rybka forum (who were constantly worried about others "peeking at Vas' source code").

I am sure Bob remembers

At Talkchess type "Robert Hyatt" + "FSF" or here only "FSF". Funny enough only one "FSF" hit at Rybka forum

It was widely known and many were looking forward to it.

But surely you have understood my point from the beginning, Fabien neglected the option of private negoatiation and started the war in public. A missed opportunity Fabien and/or his advisors can only blame themselves for.

[hyatt]

Harvey - The ICGA have forwarded the report to the FSF.

The FSF was (and still is) the owner of Fruit, as Letouzey had indicated (both publicly, and to the ICGA). The Rybka case involved someone entering a non-original work based on Fruit into an ICGA event. Given these data, I'm not sure why the ICGA shouldn't have forwarded the report to the FSF?! Should the ICCA not have contacted Hegener & Glaser if one of their products had been involved in an investigation (eg, Langer case)?

What has the ICGA to do with the FSF? That's the question. Why did Fabien not do this? I suppose Fabien gave David the person to contact at the FSF? Therefore I would like to see that email, or emails and if Fabien did stick to the deal I made with him.

You see, I didn't ask Fabien these questions (lawsuits, FSF) for nothing before putting my signature under the letter. And I remember you (after the verdict) musing here at open-chess how you met Fabien in Lille (France) and about lawsuits in Poland, you being present as an expert witness. Perhaps you can elaborate about Fabien's role and thoughts in that because that (a lawsuit) is not what I agreed with Fabien. See the mails I posted.

About Hegener & Glaser. Funny that you mention it. It fits very well with the above. Mr. Hegener is a business man, actually the most honorable business man I met in my life. David Levy is a business man as well. And every year Mr. Hegener visited the WCCC for 1 or 2 days to meet his investment (his 3 programmers) and to do business with others.

And then after the games there was dinner. Dinner with David. And they didn't talk about the games played nor did they speculate who was going to be the next world champion. They were doing business, it's what business men do. And I wondered if it is in the profile of a (back then) ICCA official to exploit his position for own financial interests.

The FSF is a non profit organization, it doesn't mean they have no costs, money is always an issue. They have mouth to feed just like the rest of us.

You seem to imply that it would somehow be disingenuous if Fabien changed his mind?

Wait, didn't YOU do that also???

[hyatt]

with Fabien's FSF intimidation (GPL breach)

The Programmer's Open Letter does not mention the FSF, only that Fruit was publicly released open-source under the GPL license. Letouzey's open letter does not mention either the FSF or the GPL. I don't know where all this "intimidation" came from, maybe some echo chamber on the Rybka forum (who were constantly worried about others "peeking at Vas' source code").

I am sure Bob remembers

At Talkchess type "Robert Hyatt" + "FSF" or here only "FSF". Funny enough only one "FSF" hit at Rybka forum

It was widely known and many were looking forward to it.

But surely you have understood my point from the beginning, Fabien neglected the option of private negoatiation and started the war in public. A missed opportunity Fabien and/or his advisors can only blame themselves for.

As far as "bob knows" I believe that on RF the "chant" was "if Vas did something wrong, FSF will say so, otherwise, not."

Or do you remember differently?

As far as "Fabien missing an opportunity," I'd imagine that after seeing all the Vas denials, he was pretty fed up with the entire thing.

[BB+]

Lion would not have been disqualified in Torino, if they had mentioned "original work based on fruit" in the entry-form with the permission from "co-author" Fabien Letouzey. They had mentioned it in a readme-file and had no explicit permission. They thought it would comply with all formalities and complained issues with english language afterwards.

I remember long ago during the WCCC (couple of years or so) that we told everyone that we felt that Lion++ was Togaish.....the rest, as they say is.....history. I can specifically remember having conversations about this with David Levy and I remember SMK looked at the code. It was found to be 80% Fruity IIRC and was disqualified from WCCC.

Conkie is incorrect. SMK did not see the source code (which would be a conflict, as he was a competitor). Rather, as per Jaap's editorial, Schaeffer and independently Björnsson inspected the code, and following Gijssen's advice, refused to put any specific percentage on it (such as 80%), rather interpreting that it was "a close derivative" as seen in Rule #2. Isenberg, on the other hand, was at the WCCC (though in Round 5 he had a problem with Isichess involving negative time management), and I think his phrasing "original work based on fruit" sums it up reasonably well, to the extent that it implies that Letouzey should be a co-author.

As for the interpretation of what LION was there are conflicting informations.

As Isenberg has written on CPW, LION++ was originally Java-based, and then ported to C++ based on the source code of Fruit. I interpret this to be a "translation" (eg re-typing from one window to another), similar to LOOP being "based on the source code of Fruit" in the sense that it re-implements Fruit with bitboards.

If it's not even clear for a lawyer then..."

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers. Given that a notable US law firm recently tried to claim that a guy was nicknamed "The Deflater" based upon his weight-loss attempts, and coincidentally just happened to the same person now accused of deflating footballs... Well, lawyers will argue anything. More pertinently, wouldn't it have been better to inquire to the ICGA, than to a lawyer?

I suppose Fabien gave David the person to contact at the FSF?

I suppose that Letouzey indicated to the ICGA that he was no longer the owner of Fruit, and that the FSF was. Then Levy would forward the ICGA report/verdict to the FSF, while when making his FSF complaint Letouzey could forward the same directly to the assigned "compliance engineer" (as the FSF calls them). Basically the difference between <info@fsf.org> and <compliance@fsf.org> [these are made up emails, for illustrative purposes].

You see, I didn't ask Fabien these questions (lawsuits, FSF) for nothing before putting my signature under the letter. And I remember you (after the verdict) musing here at open-chess how you met Fabien in Lille (France) and about lawsuits in Poland, you being present as an expert witness. Perhaps you can elaborate about Fabien's role and thoughts in that because that (a lawsuit) is not what I agreed with Fabien. See the mails I posted.

As I think I emailed you then, in Lille I basically told Letouzey what I thought the maximal circumstances were (and also what was practical, given the FSF/SFLC paradigm of "open source" and their reluctance to seek monetary damages, the cost/length of litigation [which Pascutto knew well about], the multiple jurisdictions involved...), and at the time he was happy with the ICGA verdict and was going to allow the FSF to take their course (rather than instigate anything himself, the FSF guys specifically asked regarding this, to ensure there was not going to be any interference). I agreed to be of aid as an "expert witness" in the not-very-likely event that it went that far. My recollection was that Letouzey was annoyed that Rajlich had avoided the ICGA proceedings, but that he was happy with the result, particularly that it was some sort of recognition of his work.

I don't remember if Letouzey had watched the Nelson Hernandez video at that point. The significant events of later times were Rajlich's approval of the Riis/ChessBase publication, and the ChessBase "interview" with Levy (for which he thought the final statement made up for a lot of the hostility).

But surely you have understood my point from the beginning, Fabien neglected the option of private negoatiation and started the war in public. A missed opportunity Fabien and/or his advisors can only blame themselves for.

Letouzey had been away from computer chess for 5 years (and indeed, largely away from the Internet for about half of those), and was suddenly informed that Rybka (and not just Strelka, as he had been told by Dann Corbit in 2008) was based upon Fruit. He wrote an open letter (via his friend Tord Romstad) in an attempt to get more information. He thereupon contacted me and Zach (and some others), and was of the opinion [from his 2005 experience] that the ICGA was a bunch of dopey academics who would do nothing (OK, maybe not his exact words), and the FSF would at best send an email "Please remove the links. Thanks!" Given that the Fruit/Rybka connection had been discussed since 2008 without much happening (in particular, Rajlich never saying much other than "Rybka is of course original" and the like), he thought he needed publicity to get the ball moving.

Why did Rajlich neglect private negotiation regarding Strelka, and instead start a war in public? Alternatively, Rajlich could have defused the whole Fruit issue in Aug 2008 (when Zach's evidence was first taking shape) by declaring exactly what "forwards and backwards and took many things" meant, etc. Particularly as R3 had just come out, and the older Rybkas were essentially of historical interest, and so there would be little commercial disadvantage. So I guess you could call this "a missed opportunity" (which, incidentally, is what Levy called the failed Rybka/Junior negotiations for the 2007 match).

[Rebel]

Harvey - The ICGA have forwarded the report to the FSF.

The FSF was (and still is) the owner of Fruit, as Letouzey had indicated (both publicly, and to the ICGA). The Rybka case involved someone entering a non-original work based on Fruit into an ICGA event. Given these data, I'm not sure why the ICGA shouldn't have forwarded the report to the FSF?! Should the ICCA not have contacted Hegener & Glaser if one of their products had been involved in an investigation (eg, Langer case)?

What has the ICGA to do with the FSF? That's the question. Why did Fabien not do this? I suppose Fabien gave David the person to contact at the FSF? Therefore I would like to see that email, or emails and if Fabien did stick to the deal I made with him.

You see, I didn't ask Fabien these questions (lawsuits, FSF) for nothing before putting my signature under the letter. And I remember you (after the verdict) musing here at open-chess how you met Fabien in Lille (France) and about lawsuits in Poland, you being present as an expert witness. Perhaps you can elaborate about Fabien's role and thoughts in that because that (a lawsuit) is not what I agreed with Fabien. See the mails I posted.

About Hegener & Glaser. Funny that you mention it. It fits very well with the above. Mr. Hegener is a business man, actually the most honorable business man I met in my life. David Levy is a business man as well. And every year Mr. Hegener visited the WCCC for 1 or 2 days to meet his investment (his 3 programmers) and to do business with others.

And then after the games there was dinner. Dinner with David. And they didn't talk about the games played nor did they speculate who was going to be the next world champion. They were doing business, it's what business men do. And I wondered if it is in the profile of a (back then) ICCA official to exploit his position for own financial interests.

The FSF is a non profit organization, it doesn't mean they have no costs, money is always an issue. They have mouth to feed just like the rest of us.

You seem to imply that it would somehow be disingenuous if Fabien changed his mind?

We all make mistakes and Fabien probably had just forgotten. And BTW, Vas never was contacted by the FSF. No bloodshed. Which is good.