OpenChess

For instance, Articles 4.2 and 6 of the Computer Programs Directive for the EU discuss this, and I think the intent is to prohibit reverse engineering in general (and most likely thus the sense of whatever happened with R3/IPPOLIT).

For instance, the license (if any) you get with Rybka seems to depend on the re-distributor. I went to 3 major ones, and for none of them was I asked to click "I agree" not to reverse-engineer, etc., the product before being able to click "Confirm payment". One of the 3 had me click "I agree" about indemnity, etc., and one of the others had some boilerplate Terms and Conditions that included "no reverse-engineering", but I was never asked if I agreed to this. The validity of such "shrink-wrap" licenses is also a point of dispute [...] I don't know about the laws in the Russian Federation.

Subject: Re: Do we really want it?
From: Vasik Rajlich
Message Number: 384927
Date: August 29, 2004 at 09:00:04
[...]
Gerd,

disassembling for purposes of finding information is legal and cannot be prevented.

It would be legal (though incredibly hard) for someone to disassemble one of the commercial programs and publish his findings.

Vas

Subject: Re: Questions about disassembling
From: Vasik Rajlich
Message Number: 487295
Date: February 17, 2006 at 04:17:38

On February 17, 2006 at 02:33:32, Jouni Uski wrote:
[...]
>Is it possible to disassemble exe-file, which is zipped and/or copy protected like Fruit 2.2.1? Where are disassemblers downloadable?
[...]

IDA Pro is easily the best. Technically it is not legal (although even this is not quite that simple, there have been a number of court cases, etc), in practice in computer chess you can do it.

Just a general comment though: it is _extremely_ hard to figure out the innovations in a program. Basically, I would say that in practice it is impossible. Yes, you can locate the move generator, because you already know what that looks like and what it does. But understanding the evaluation terms, or adjustments to search depth, would require an ungodly effort, especially for a complex program. Let me put it like this: every aspiring computer chess programmer has been very strongly tempted to try his hand at disassembling. When I started computer chess, Shredder was the king. We all wanted to know what he was doing. And nobody found out. Not Chrily Donninger. Not Frans Morsch. And not any of the then-amateurs.

You'll find some people posting here for example about what they "found" in Rybka. So far it has always just been transparent guessing based on program behavior, with the disassembly argument used to make it seem legit.

Vas

BB+ wrote:Here are some comments from VR:

Subject: Re: Do we really want it?
From: Vasik Rajlich
Message Number: 384927
Date: August 29, 2004 at 09:00:04
[...]
Gerd,

disassembling for purposes of finding information is legal and cannot be prevented.

It would be legal (though incredibly hard) for someone to disassemble one of the commercial programs and publish his findings.

Vas

Subject: Re: Questions about disassembling
From: Vasik Rajlich
Message Number: 487295
Date: February 17, 2006 at 04:17:38

On February 17, 2006 at 02:33:32, Jouni Uski wrote:
[...]
>Is it possible to disassemble exe-file, which is zipped and/or copy protected like Fruit 2.2.1? Where are disassemblers downloadable?
[...]

IDA Pro is easily the best. Technically it is not legal (although even this is not quite that simple, there have been a number of court cases, etc), in practice in computer chess you can do it.

Just a general comment though: it is _extremely_ hard to figure out the innovations in a program. Basically, I would say that in practice it is impossible. Yes, you can locate the move generator, because you already know what that looks like and what it does. But understanding the evaluation terms, or adjustments to search depth, would require an ungodly effort, especially for a complex program. Let me put it like this: every aspiring computer chess programmer has been very strongly tempted to try his hand at disassembling. When I started computer chess, Shredder was the king. We all wanted to know what he was doing. And nobody found out. Not Chrily Donninger. Not Frans Morsch. And not any of the then-amateurs.

You'll find some people posting here for example about what they "found" in Rybka. So far it has always just been transparent guessing based on program behavior, with the disassembly argument used to make it seem legit.

Vas

BB+ wrote:I tripped my way through this previously. http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php ... t=20#p7101

For instance, Articles 4.2 and 6 of the Computer Programs Directive for the EU discuss this, and I think the intent is to prohibit reverse engineering in general (and most likely thus the sense of whatever happened with R3/IPPOLIT).

There is also a claim that the shareit! license forbids it, and I consider that here: http://www.open-chess.org/viewtopic.php ... t=20#p7191

For instance, the license (if any) you get with Rybka seems to depend on the re-distributor. I went to 3 major ones, and for none of them was I asked to click "I agree" not to reverse-engineer, etc., the product before being able to click "Confirm payment". One of the 3 had me click "I agree" about indemnity, etc., and one of the others had some boilerplate Terms and Conditions that included "no reverse-engineering", but I was never asked if I agreed to this. The validity of such "shrink-wrap" licenses is also a point of dispute [...] I don't know about the laws in the Russian Federation.

I personally don't think the "legal" question is the one of most interest, though it seems to get hammered quite often in lieu of alternative arguments.

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

BB+ wrote:Here are some comments from VR:

Subject: Re: Do we really want it?
From: Vasik Rajlich
Message Number: 384927
Date: August 29, 2004 at 09:00:04
[...]
Gerd,

disassembling for purposes of finding information is legal and cannot be prevented.

It would be legal (though incredibly hard) for someone to disassemble one of the commercial programs and publish his findings.

Vas

Subject: Re: Questions about disassembling
From: Vasik Rajlich
Message Number: 487295
Date: February 17, 2006 at 04:17:38

On February 17, 2006 at 02:33:32, Jouni Uski wrote:
[...]
>Is it possible to disassemble exe-file, which is zipped and/or copy protected like Fruit 2.2.1? Where are disassemblers downloadable?
[...]

IDA Pro is easily the best. Technically it is not legal (although even this is not quite that simple, there have been a number of court cases, etc), in practice in computer chess you can do it.

Just a general comment though: it is _extremely_ hard to figure out the innovations in a program. Basically, I would say that in practice it is impossible. Yes, you can locate the move generator, because you already know what that looks like and what it does. But understanding the evaluation terms, or adjustments to search depth, would require an ungodly effort, especially for a complex program. Let me put it like this: every aspiring computer chess programmer has been very strongly tempted to try his hand at disassembling. When I started computer chess, Shredder was the king. We all wanted to know what he was doing. And nobody found out. Not Chrily Donninger. Not Frans Morsch. And not any of the then-amateurs.

You'll find some people posting here for example about what they "found" in Rybka. So far it has always just been transparent guessing based on program behavior, with the disassembly argument used to make it seem legit.

Vas

Great material. Thanks for sharing it.

Sentinel wrote:Vas is practically saying authors of Ippolit are gods. This is just hilarious...

Peter C wrote:

Sentinel wrote:Vas is practically saying authors of Ippolit are gods. This is just hilarious...

And the weird thing is, he claimed to get emails from people who disassembled Rybka, which he claims is next to impossible....

Vas is an interesting character, that's for sure.

Peter

I personally don't think the "legal" question is the one of most interest, though it seems to get hammered quite often in lieu of alternative arguments.

What then do you think is of most interest?