Houdini is a stolen copy of robbolito?

[Carlos Ylich]

Already there is evidence that Houdini is nothing more than a stolen copy of Robbolito. But at a certain forum can not speak it. It is interesting that you complain and do not explain why.
This can only mean that they are partners in this Houdart theft. Houdini is nothing more than a Frankenstein engine, mounted with ideas Robbolito, Stockfish, Ivanhoe, and Fire. Those are facts.
The truth is always the outside?

[User923005]

The Robbolito/Ivanhoe/Iggorit/Ippolit family of engines was released as public domain.
There is some question as to the origin of these engines (e.g. claims of reverse engineering from Rybka).
Assuming that these engines were obtained via reverse engineering of Rybka, and that the reverse engineering was illegally used, and that the original trade secrets were valid, then those public domain engines would also be invalid. However, that has (as yet) not been formally proven.

Public domain means that you can literally do anything you like with it. You can do nothing at all to the code and sell the engine for $10,000 per copy if you like. You can make your own version and keep the changes to yourself. Etc.

Therefore, until such time as formal charges against these public domain engines are actually proven, there is nothing {legally} wrong with doing whatever someone likes with the code base.
Changing nothing more than the name of the engine is totally fine from a legal standpoint and not stealing at all. These authors also have no legal compunction whatsoever to share the changes they have made to make the engines stronger.

If (at some point) formal charges were legally proven against the ippolit crew, then the derivatives would have quite a pickle to deal with. Until then, the only thing against them is the public opinion of those who do not like it. Many of those same persons who do not like it are using the same ideas (but in a pick and choose from a smorgasboard rather than grabbing the whole lunch-counter and piling it into a sack).

That does not mean that other people will like the whole sale duplication of strong engines of questioned origins. That does not mean that chess engine contests have to include these engines as peers to all other engines. Of course, public opinion can vary wildly on this topic. Some people could care less what the origins of something is as long as it plays or analyzes well. Some people are repulsed to the point of hatred.

Personally, I think that the cat is out of the bag now. Can you put those Rybka and Ivanhoe secrets back into the bag so that no one will use them? I suspect not.

I can tell you that *lots* of engines are using these ideas now. Trying to fix it is like trying to un-pregnant the teen 8 months after the fact. Solutions like "sledgehammer to the baby" are not very practical in my view.

In the ideal world, everyone shares their ideas and information is free. Chess engines become stronger because of the cooperative atmosphere and because of the pure desire to understand the underlying principles of chess, programming, and the related mathematics. In the real world, it does not work that way, and my statement becomes commical. Have you some idea of how to fix it? Because I don't.

[Prima]

Public domain means that you can literally do anything you like with it. You can do nothing at all to the code and sell the engine for $10,000 per copy if you like. You can make your own version and keep the changes to yourself. Etc.

Therefore, until such time as formal charges against these public domain engines are actually proven, there is nothing {legally} wrong with doing whatever someone likes with the code base.

All good.

Except that in Europe, where Robert Houdart resides & sells this Public Domain code-based engine, it is actually illegal to sell/profit from Public Domain property. I'm actually lazy to pull the link on this specific European Law, relative to Public Domain codes/property.

[User923005]

I am absolutely positive that you are wrong.

If there is a law that you cannot profit from public domain software, it is literally the dumbest law in the world, and the legislators would have the collective IQ of a box of rocks.

Do you know what that even means?

The quicksort algorithm is now public domain, since the copyright has expired. The C standard library uses quicksort (or introspective sort, which uses quicksort). The C++ library uses the C standard library. All commercial and Posix based operating systems use C or C++ in their constructions at least at some point. Therefore, under this supposed European law, all operating systems are in violation of the law.

If this really is a law, then the law is a donkey.

[Prima]

I am absolutely positive that you are wrong.

If there is a law that you cannot profit from public domain software, it is literally the dumbest law in the world, and the legislators would have the collective IQ of a box of rocks.

Do you know what that even means?

The quicksort algorithm is now public domain, since the copyright has expired. The C standard library uses quicksort (or introspective sort, which uses quicksort). The C++ library uses the C standard library. All commercial and Posix based operating systems use C or C++ in their constructions at least at some point. Therefore, under this supposed European law, all operating systems are in violation of the law.

If this really is a law, then the law is a donkey.

Another problem is, the copyright has not expired! If I'm correct in my interpretation, it takes 70 years for copyright(s) to expire in Europe. Other materials require 50 years. Current dicussions aims at extending it to 95. That's their law. So far, IPPOLIT/Robbolito is around, maybe, 2+ to 3 years old?

See here, the first paragraph of Duration of Protection:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_ ... pean_Union

Of course you're welcome to read the whole thing. But I'm pretty sure European Law, which is quite definitive than Wiki, does not allow for sole ownership and profiting of Public Domain.

[User923005]

Public domain simply means intellectual property that has lost all ownership.
The ownership can be lost because the copyright has expired.
The ownership can be lost because the author has surrendered ownership. Here is an example:
=======================================================================================
SQLite Copyright

All of the deliverable code in SQLite has been dedicated to the public domain by the authors. All code authors, and representatives of the companies they work for, have signed affidavits dedicating their contributions to the public domain and originals of those signed affidavits are stored in a firesafe at the main offices of Hwaci. Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute the original SQLite code, either in source code form or as a compiled binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any means.

The previous paragraph applies to the deliverable code in SQLite - those parts of the SQLite library that you actually bundle and ship with a larger application. Portions of the documentation and some code used as part of the build process might fall under other licenses. The details here are unclear. We do not worry about the licensing of the documentation and build code so much because none of these things are part of the core deliverable SQLite library.

All of the deliverable code in SQLite has been written from scratch. No code has been taken from other projects or from the open internet. Every line of code can be traced back to its original author, and all of those authors have public domain dedications on file. So the SQLite code base is clean and is uncontaminated with licensed code from other projects.
=======================================================================================

Do you have a modern cell phone? Most of them have SQLite on them. Did you pay for your cell phone or your cell phone service? Dr. Hwaci does not get paid for the use of SQLite.

This is the legal definition of public domain:
======================================================================================
public domain noun available for use by the public, creative work freely usable, dominion to use, free to all, freely used by the community, invention freely usable, logo freely usable, not private, open for the community, permitted, publicly accessible, publicly obtainable, publicly usable, unreserved, unrestricted, within the province of the public
Associated concepts: patents, promietary rights
Burton's Legal Thesaurus, 4E. Copyright © 2007 by William C. Burton. Used with permission of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
======================================================================================

The copyright of quicksort expired because the former law allowed 14 years for software copyright. Of course, that protects only the implementation and not the algorithm, which is neither here nor there for a copyright discussion.

[User923005]

Public domain in Europe:
http://www.rightscom.com/Default.aspx?tabid=20397

The restoration of expired copyrights in Europe was for the following categories:
Performers, Phonogram producers, Film producers, Broadcasting organisations
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_ ... protection

I don't think that they could make someone assume copyright if they have made a conscious decision to surrender it, but lawmakers sometimes have the normal human tendency for incredible stupidity that we unfortunately all possess from time to time so I won't say it's impossible. Only that it would take the mind of a donkey to do it. It means quite literally that they simply do not understand the meaning of the term.

BTW, someone who takes public domain code can own their own copy, but they can't rescind the public domain status of the original code (for obvious reasons).

[Prima]

Public domain in Europe:
http://www.rightscom.com/Default.aspx?tabid=20397

The restoration of expired copyrights in Europe was for the following categories:
Performers, Phonogram producers, Film producers, Broadcasting organisations
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_ ... protection

I don't think that they could make someone assume copyright if they have made a conscious decision to surrender it, but lawmakers sometimes have the normal human tendency for incredible stupidity that we unfortunately all possess from time to time so I won't say it's impossible. Only that it would take the mind of a donkey to do it. It means quite literally that they simply do not understand the meaning of the term.

BTW, someone who takes public domain code can own their own copy, but they can't rescind the public domain status of the original code (for obvious reasons).

Public domain simply means intellectual property that has lost all ownership.
The ownership can be lost because the copyright has expired.
The ownership can be lost because the author has surrendered ownership. Here is an example:
=======================================================================================

Remember, we're talking European Law relative to Public Domain, because THAT'S where Robert Houdart resides.

From Wikipedia;

Duration of protection

The rights of authors are protected within their lifetime and for seventy years after their death;[15] this includes the resale rights of artists.[16] For films and other audiovisual works, the seventy year period applies from the last death among the following people, whether or not they are considered to be authors of the work by the national law of the Member State: the principal director (who is always considered to be an author of the audiovisual work), the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual work

The European Law on the matter voids your assertions that I highlighted. According to the European Law on PD; whether the authors of IPPOLIT are considered to be authors of the work or not, the PD item itself has a protection of 70 years. So far, IPPOLIT codes are approx. 3 years and has not expired. Nor has all (and/or the last man) authors of IPPOLIT died off. Again, it's the European Law.

That said, EXACTLY how, or under what law, did Robert Houdart get the "okay" to go ahead and re-sale PD (IPPOLIT/Robbolito) codes?

NOTE: Phonograms, Film producers, etc are already covered under the 70 year (and/or 50 year) law. Also, the first link in your last reply is an outline of a research team/paper on modifications of PD property and implementation etc. It has nothing to do with either disapproving or approving current EU PD laws.

[User923005]

The European Law on the matter voids your assertions that I highlighted. According to the European Law on PD; whether the authors of IPPOLIT are considered to be authors of the work or not, the PD item itself has a protection of 70 years. So far, IPPOLIT codes are approx. 3 years and has not expired. Nor has all (and/or the last man) authors of IPPOLIT died off. Again, it's the European Law.

That said, EXACTLY how, or under what law, did Robert Houdart get the "okay" to go ahead and re-sale PD (IPPOLIT/Robbolito) codes?

The authors specifically donated the code to the public domain. If Europe does not allow public domain, then they could certainly use the Creative Commons which is equivalent:
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain ... /legalcode

Your complaint is that Robert Houdart is violating the copyright of the Ippolit authors. The Ippolit authors have effectively said, "We rescind all rights to this software and state that you can use it for any purpose eternally with our full permission."

It seems plain enough to me that the Ippolit authors do not care about what Robert does with the software, so in what way is Robert Houdart or any of the others using the Ippolit software harming the "Comrades" group that explicitly gave it away?

Your complain makes literally no sense to me whatsoever. The lack of public domain designation is also literally absurd (if truly such a thing does exist). But then again, we have this:
(Jeremiah 10:23) 23 I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.

So I suppose that such a thing is what we might expect and the sensible provision of being able to make a gift of something you have created could easily be legislated against.

[Prima]

The European Law on the matter voids your assertions that I highlighted. According to the European Law on PD; whether the authors of IPPOLIT are considered to be authors of the work or not, the PD item itself has a protection of 70 years. So far, IPPOLIT codes are approx. 3 years and has not expired. Nor has all (and/or the last man) authors of IPPOLIT died off. Again, it's the European Law.

That said, EXACTLY how, or under what law, did Robert Houdart get the "okay" to go ahead and re-sale PD (IPPOLIT/Robbolito) codes?

The authors specifically donated the code to the public domain. If Europe does not allow public domain, then they could certainly use the Creative Commons which is equivalent:
http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain ... /legalcode

Your complaint is that Robert Houdart is violating the copyright of the Ippolit authors. The Ippolit authors have effectively said, "We rescind all rights to this software and state that you can use it for any purpose eternally with our full permission."

It seems plain enough to me that the Ippolit authors do not care about what Robert does with the software, so in what way is Robert Houdart or any of the others using the Ippolit software harming the "Comrades" group that explicitly gave it away?

Your complain makes literally no sense to me whatsoever. The lack of public domain designation is also literally absurd (if truly such a thing does exist). But then again, we have this:
(Jeremiah 10:23) 23 I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.

So I suppose that such a thing is what we might expect and the sensible provision of being able to make a gift of something you have created could easily be legislated against.

No, no, no. It's not about the authors' rights now. It's about Europe's law, in relation to PD. And in Europe, (1) it is illegal to "close", use PD for one's personal gains etc. Again, I would have to find that exact link/source(s). (2) Even if IPPOLIT authors rescind their rights, ownership etc to IPPOLIT codes, in Europe, it is still regarded as Public Domain. And there are laws in Europe regulating this. Which brings us back to (1). (3)Yes, Public Domain can be used by any persons how they like. Just NOT in Europe. If Robert Houdart lived outside of Europe, then it's a different ball game. See the difference now?