Fabien's open letter to the community

[thorstenczub]

will the people who bought rybka from chessbase now get their money back ?
will the people who bought rybka from mr. vas rajlich now get their money back because he is possibly not the owner of the program ?



the law in germany says:

Strafgesetzbuch
Besonderer Teil (§§ 80 - 358)
21. Abschnitt - Begünstigung und Hehlerei (§§ 257 - 262)
Gliederung
§ 259
Hehlerei

(1) Wer eine Sache, die ein anderer gestohlen oder sonst durch eine gegen fremdes Vermögen gerichtete rechtswidrige Tat erlangt hat, ankauft oder sonst sich oder einem Dritten verschafft, sie absetzt oder absetzen hilft, um sich oder einen Dritten zu bereichern, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.

(2) Die §§ 247 und 248a gelten sinngemäß.

(3) Der Versuch ist strafbar.

[Harvey Williamson]

will the people who bought rybka from chessbase now get their money back ?
will the people who bought rybka from mr. vas rajlich now get their money back because he is possibly not the owner of the program ?



the law in germany says:

Strafgesetzbuch
Besonderer Teil (§§ 80 - 358)
21. Abschnitt - Begünstigung und Hehlerei (§§ 257 - 262)
Gliederung
§ 259
Hehlerei

(1) Wer eine Sache, die ein anderer gestohlen oder sonst durch eine gegen fremdes Vermögen gerichtete rechtswidrige Tat erlangt hat, ankauft oder sonst sich oder einem Dritten verschafft, sie absetzt oder absetzen hilft, um sich oder einen Dritten zu bereichern, wird mit Freiheitsstrafe bis zu fünf Jahren oder mit Geldstrafe bestraft.

(2) Die §§ 247 und 248a gelten sinngemäß.

(3) Der Versuch ist strafbar.

If you are asking me:

1) I can not read German (and as it is a troll post from you can not be bothered to translate it)
2) Ask someone who works for Chessbase I do not.

Amazing the most exciting post for a long time happened yesterday. There is a long way to go before the issues you are trolling about need to be discussed but you would rather attack me than discuss the contents of the interesting post by Fabien. Ah well Thor maybe one day you will not be a sad, bitter and twisted old troll. I sincerely hope so.

[BB+]

There's some discussion about Vasik's alleged claim that he spoke to Fabien at some point about potential GPL issues wrt Fruit. I've been searching and here's the best I could find...

Same here, I was unable to corroborate Wael Deeb's claim of this via either recollection and/or search engines. It was a startling notion to me, though I guess I could see how one could imagine it, given that various backers have been pushing "Asssume the worst possible case against Vas -- even then Fabien seems OK with it" [and today the tune is "Is there anything new here that we didn't know 3 years ago?", and Fabien's opinion is treated as irrelevant because all the info is already public ].

One of the most sane things said in the whole lot is from Eelco de Groot:

So this discussion is in the end not about copyright, but about honour, fair use of ideas, and recognition. Which are important enough of course, but inherently less objective to judge as they are guided by unwritten law.

[thorstenczub]

Ah well Thor maybe one day you will not be a sad, bitter and twisted old troll. I sincerely hope so.

))

you are smaller, older and ... as we all were happy to watch the last weeks,
on the wrong side of the bridge.

why do you believe i am bitter or sad. i am watching your "justifications" with
big amusement now.

Your kind of people hunted others, without any reason to do so other then despotic
power misuse. you protected a program called rybka and you hunted programs
like robbolito, strelka, houdini , ivonhoe, ...
you banned, censored, made a case in your own narcistic way.
people like you even made whole subforums for "engine origins".
but... all this was not able to hide the truth.
all this banning and censorship and gestapo-methods of self-announced
clone-police comes now back like a boomerang.
The rating lists who banned robbolito/strelka etc.
will have to "reevaluate" their judgement.
will you apologize to all the people you banned because YOU believed they use a clone when in fact they used another legal version of fruit ?
can the people YOU banned from playchess server get their money
back because the service that was sold with the products
was destroyed by your wrong banning behaviour ?
will you pay them from your own money ? or will chessbase pay back for you ?

if a customer is not capable to use a service he paid for,
because YOU wrongly banned him, will court decide about you and the company
to pay back ?

look harvey.
all those things were known for months, years.
but instead of ACCEPTING them, as changing your policy, you still continued
with this behaviour.

So you willingly behaved wrong.
it was no mistake.
you WANTED to damage these people.
you enforced the policy of that company although it was known
it is wrong.

and you OVERSAW all the facts and analysis that showed where rybka was
copied from fruit.

you closed your eyes where you did not like the truth,
and you enforced a wrong policy although you could have known better.

i hope you will apologize to those people you accused of beeing criminals,
(your lately affront towards cock de gorter comes to my mind),
when in fact your behaviour in the computerchess scene helped
commercial people to exploit a product that was obviously not their
property.

lets say it clear harvey.

your kind of:

From:Harvey Williamson
To:mclane
Posted:Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:55 pm
Subject:Your posts
Hi Thorsten,

I deleted your post 3x today. If you can not post in a constructive way then
please do not bother. If you post it again I will ban you.

Best Wishes,
Harvey

despotic behaviour with banning other people because you don't like them
to tell something that does not fit into your point of views,
is not a great help in this moment.
we all know you behave like this. and we also know you will
not find the guts to apologize for your wrong behaviour.
you stick on the wrong side of the bridge.
you will stay there, just to DEFEND your wrong behaviour,
and the more you will sink into the mud, you will
insult me and call me many things completely ignoring
the fact that i am taller and younger like you. i do even
have all my hair on my head, what i cannot say from you.

so continue to "defend" your position.

Luke 22:54-62

[54] Then seizing him, they led him away and took him into the house of the high priest. Peter followed at a distance. [55] But when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and had sat down together, Peter sat down with them. [56] A servant girl saw him seated there in the firelight. She looked closely at him and said, "This man was with him."

[57] But he denied it. "Woman, I don't know him," he said.

[58] A little later someone else saw him and said, "You also are one of them."

"Man, I am not!" Peter replied.

[59] About an hour later another asserted, "Certainly this fellow was with him, for he is a Gallilean."

[60] Peter replied, "Man, I don't know what you're talking about!" Just as he was speaking, the rooster crowed. [61] The Lord turned and looked straight at Peter. Then Peter remembered the word the Lord had spoken to him: "Before the rooster crows today, you will disown me three times." [62] And he went outside and wept bitterly.

So... maybe you should reconsider your own position.
its maybe still time to reevaluate and to apologize.

[BB+]

Since inclusion/exclusion in CCRL ratings seem to be of interest to some (and the TalkChess thread can be hard to navigate), here is the statement of Graham Banks (emphasis in original):

Personally, I'm waiting for this to play out further before making any big decisions.

Once Fabien says that he has examined all the facts for himself and states that Rybka is undeniably nothing more than a Fruit ripoff and which versions this applies to (statements that he would be prepared to defend in a legal sense), I will be perfectly happy to personally stop testing those versions and to advocate for their removal from the CCRL rating lists (although I'm only one of a dozen or so testers, so that decision would be a group one).

This is quite in line with previous CCRL actions. For instance, Strelka was allowed in CCRL (with a great debate abounding), until VR made his statement about it. Similarly, IPPOLIT was excluded due to VR saying "undeniably" and "for himself" that it was a R3 rip-off (though I'm not sure whether [presumably in May 2009, when first contacted] such comments were meant to be construed "in a legal sense" -- but the rules are different with anonymous entities I surmise). OTOH, I can't say that blindly accepting the say-so of a principal is a brilliant resolution model, and GB himself touches upon this:

However, there are always two sides to every story and it's incredibly annoying and frustrating that Vas does not say more on this issue.
Perhaps FSF action would be a great way to end this debate once and for all.

[thorstenczub]

they are helpless.
they were helpless in all those years they banned programs without reason other than
hear said claims from vas rajlich.

where are the many customers asking for their money to be paid back ?
those who owned fruit (yes it was once sold)
paid twice or thrice when paying for rybka.

the output was faked to hide the truth.
that it could be based on a program the people had bought before.

[Harvey Williamson]

they are helpless.
they were helpless in all those years they banned programs without reason other than
hear said claims from vas rajlich.

where are the many customers asking for their money to be paid back ?
those who owned fruit (yes it was once sold)
paid twice or thrice when paying for rybka.

the output was faked to hide the truth.
that it could be based on a program the people had bought before.

Why should the get their money back? They got a better engine each time. IF the story is proved send all the money to fabien

[thorstenczub]

so vas or chessbase will transfer the money to fabien letouzey or whoever owns the rights on it now ? this is what you support ?

and the people with the locked accounts on playchess, who could not play chess although
they paid, and who did not use ILLEGAL engines, as we learn now, but instead fruit-clones,
while those customers who played with rybka, were not banned although its not sure if the program is not a fruit clone, will those rybka owners playing on chessbase now be banned ?

lets see if the owner of fruit gets the money he deserves.
i am sure we will be informed about this.

also i read that GPL demands to publish the source code.
otherwise it cannot be "sold".
if rajlich has no source code anymore, he had no right to distribute it.
so he pays back the customers ?!
or gives the source code ?
oh i forgot he hasn't the source code anymore. how sloppy ...

will rybka be banned from official tournaments/championships
in the computerchess scene until it is proven that it is not a clone engine of fruit?

[tomgdrums]

they are helpless.
they were helpless in all those years they banned programs without reason other than
hear said claims from vas rajlich.

where are the many customers asking for their money to be paid back ?
those who owned fruit (yes it was once sold)
paid twice or thrice when paying for rybka.

the output was faked to hide the truth.
that it could be based on a program the people had bought before.

Why should the get their money back? They got a better engine each time. IF the story is proved send all the money to fabien

Because it has nothing to with engine strength!!!

I purchased Rybka believing that it was legitimate and that I was NOT selling out my principles by purchasing it. So Fabien's comments hold up (and it seems like they will) then yeah! I want my money back from Rybka. I don't like being mislead. I haven't used Houdini or any of the Ippolit family because of what they seem to be. And now it seems I can't use Rybka unless I want to be raving hypocrite. And NO engine is worth being a hypocrite for.

I know getting my money from Rybka is not going to happen but I do understand the argument.

[Prima]

Just what Dr. Rober (Bob) Hyatt and other reputable computer/programmers have been saying for years and now confirmed by Mr. Fabien Letouzy
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 31&t=37762
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 56&t=37762

what shall we do with the self alleged cloning hunters who hunted the wrong people,
blackmailed and censored computerchess boards for years ?
what shall we do with these mc_carthy dirt, those gestapo-guys with the narcistic personality disorder ?

It gets even 'better', Thorstenczub. Now a poster on CCC forum made this statement, when confronted about the apparent hypocrisy, deceit, censorship demonstrated by this individual and his entire chess computer chess gangs. I quote this person:

Personally, I'm waiting for this to play out further before making any big decisions.

Once Fabien says that he has examined all the facts for himself and states that Rybka is undeniably nothing more than a Fruit ripoff and which versions this applies to (statements that he would be prepared to defend in a legal sense), I will be perfectly happy to personally stop testing those versions and to advocate for their removal from the CCRL rating lists (although I'm only one of a dozen or so testers, so that decision would be a group one).

Which versions this applies to....and.... stop testing those versions??!!! Is this suppose to be a clause to still protect and support Ry*ka at all cost? This is hilarious in itself.

These guys just won't stop with the endless and unsupported excuses to keep using and testing Ry*ka. They even make a version-clause - indirectly calling Mr. Fabien Letouzy a liar and untrustworthy (my interpretation here). Why should Fabien Letouzey have to prove 'which Ry*ka version' is Fruit-based and, I quote here;

(statements that he would be prepared to defend in a legal sense)

?

But in a similar situation where Vas made the accusation that Ippoli and RobboLito is a Ry*ka 3 clone, the likes of this poster did not ask Vas to prove which version of Ippolit/RobboLito were Ry*ka 3 clone. Nor did they 'encourage' Vas to make accusing statements that he would be prepared to defend in a legal sense.

Also, the excuse that Ry*ka 3 source code was lost (or stolen?) is unbelievable. My personal opinion is that this is a ruse to give the impression that Ry*ka 4 is ' yet another original Ry*ka engine', or totally unrelated to its previous Fruit-based versions. I strongly believe that Fruit 2.1 was/is in Ry*ka 1.0 beta, therefore Fruit's concepts has to be transferred to Ry*ka 2, Ry*ka 3, and then to Ry*ka 4's versions. It may be tweaked but nevertheless, Fruit is present in all Ry*kas.

To surmise, based on the logic of these guys or Rybka-fan boys, it's okay for Vas to take an open source GPL code and increase his Ry*ka many hundred ELOs, then makes it close source/not release source - a direct violation of GPL license. He then goes commercial with the GPL-obtained code to improve subsequent Ry**a versions without releasing the source codes but he's not asked to defend his ethics, in relation to the Fruit-Ry*ka GPL license in court, despite numerous and respectable programmers' conclusion that Ry*ka is definitely a Fruit-clone. I could go on here.....

It's funny that now that Ry*ka is on the defensive side here, this poster is willing to "Personally wait for this to play out further before making any big decisions." Interesting concept. Where was this civil concept when Vas made an unfounded clone claim that Ippolit and RobboLito are Ry*ka 3 clones? Where was this civil gesture from the chessbase Sysops/ certain-forum-moderators before censoring and banning people from both forums and playchess server?

Are other sane people seeing these and the double standard hypocrisy going on here?