Programmers Open Letter to ICGA on Rybka/Fruit

[BB+]

And then there are the known bugs in the old Crafty code (if ms == 99999) that caused El Chinito to be exposed as a clone).

I might point out here that the ELChinito case concluded (essentially) with an admission of guilt and an apology by Eugenio Castillo. See http://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=384790
That thread could additionally have some other posts of historical interest in dealing with "rehabilitation" in such circumstances (the thread also has much of the usual CCC nonsense, of course).

I can also note that Eugenio was an author of XieXie, which subsequently won a Bronze Medal in Chinese Chess in the 2007 ICGA Olympiad.

[hyatt]

The idea of the "3" was that if 4 history moves have not produced a cutoff, there is no need to continue the selection sort, which turns the next move function in an O(N^2 / 2) complexity. So the 3 (which says search 3 here, plus the one in history_1 that was used to cull the hash move from the list) gives a total of 4, and turns this into an O(N) after the first 4 moves are selected. Sort of a precursor for the LMR idea, except that here it is more of a NLMO (No Late Move Ordering).

So, there is always rhyme to the reason. And the chances of another choosing that exact value is slim to none, and slim just left town...

[BB+]

I have provided the ICGA secretariat with the pre-Fruit versions of Rybka I have here.
These versions were meant to remain private, but I feel I have been cheated, and truth must be known.

It has elsewhere been suggested that Olivier committed an impropriety. Herein I describe my current knowledge of the situation. As the ethical question should be rather clear given the Crafty situation with the pre-Beta Rybka, I stick strictly to the legal.

1) Deville and Rajlich entered an (implicit) agreement, in which Deville would receive an original (and legal) engine from Rajlich for the purpose of said engine competing in the tournament run by Deville.
2) Rajlich did not give Deville such an engine, but rather gave him a illegal derivative engine.
3) After a considerable passage of time, events occurred which gave Deville grave suspicions that he had been cheated, and the engine entered by Rajlich was in fact not original.
4) Lacking by himself the ability to determine this, Deville decided to convey a copy of the engine entered by Rajilch to a noted authority in the field, the ICGA Clone Investigations Panel.
5) The Secretariat of said Panel engaged two independent experts (Zach and myself), and conveyed a copy to each.
6) In the course of the investigations, said experts found much code that was [allegedly] copied from Crafty.
7) These experts (in conjunction with the Secretariat) notified the copyright owner of Crafty (namely Hyatt) of said violations.
8) Hyatt publicised these facts.

Unless you are to argue that Deville acted improperly in #4 (vis-à-vis the subset of non-copied code in Rybka 1.6.1), I don't see where any legal fault of his might lie [similarly with the Secretariat in #5]. For that, I adduce fair dealing for the countries in question (note that computer programs are considered literary works, and the "countries in question" are those of the receivers):

Australia: Copyright Act 1968, Section 40

Fair dealing for purpose of research or study
(1) A fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, or with an adaptation of a literary, dramatic or musical work, for the purpose of research or study does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the work.

UK: Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Section 29

1)Fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work for the purposes of research for a non-commercial purpose does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.

USA: Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

There are standards in both the UK and Australia for deciding whether something really is "fair use", and they consist of considerations parallel to those enumerated above in the US statute.

It is my argument that the conveying of copies of Rybka 1.6.1 (by both Deville and the ICGA Clones Investigation Panel Secretariat) falls under this heading.

As an aside (and to state the blatantly obvious), even if one assumed there were an implicit NDA between Deville and Rajilch, it would be voided by the latter's failure to perform (see #2). So I do not see how one can argue that Olivier's action was improper.

[Olivier Deville]

Thanks Mark. Actually I have not seen the thread where my actions have been criticized, but I don't mind much anyway.

To be fair, I was not expecting those early versions of Rybka to be clones. I have paid for Rybka 3 and Rybka 4, which are looking more and more suspicious, and this is what I meant when I wrote I had been cheated (like all other Rybka costumers). When I made the decision to send those old Rybkas to the ICGA secretariat, my feeling was that if they were legit, no harm would be done to Vasik Rajlich by letting 2 or 3 experts have a look at them.

Olivier

[benstoker]

This is all purely academic and has nothing to do with actual real world events or people:

Having said that, you are crazy if you think your 30 years of man hours developing crafty cannot be monetized in a civil court. JM has cited UK primer on UK copyright law. Take my word for it, those basic principles governing measurement of dams for IP theft are same in US. It doesn't matter that crafty is not commercial. It COULD be. The measurement of the dams is no walk in the park for sure. But, it correlates to the profits obtained using the stolen IP. Very complicated indeed, when stolen IP is mixed with other stolen IP and combined with some marginally or significantly original code. The jury questions would ask what % of program source code is from author A and what % is from author B. How much profits did Thief make with program? A gets profits*% and B gets his profits * %.

Practical aspect is different ball game of course. Are assets locatable in USA? None specific? Then ct order garnishing profits from continued sale of thief's program. Or turnover receivership of business. All kinds of ways to get the money. And if there's plenty of money to be had, there's an IP law firm that would do it on a contingency. Distributors of the thief's program would be put on notice.

[in case there's any confusion, the above has absolutely nothing to do with Rybka or Vas. It is purely an academic discussion. Vas is a completely honest person who has never and would never take someone's code.]

Personally, I am not going to sue anyone. Clearly Vas violated the Crafty license agreement since it is quite explicit in that any program using any of the Crafty code cannot then participate in any chess event, period. However, with no "physical damages" a legal action is just a way of giving a lot of money to lawyers with no possible remuneration. Not to mention the time involved. I'd as soon make a donation to an attorney and avoid losing the time.

Wait a minute there. IF someone takes your property and makes money with it, that person is unjustly enriched. The damages correlate to the extent of the enrichment, i.e., the thief's profits. (not to mention separate statutory damages for copyright infringement) [Legal blah blah: this is not legal advice]

I am not sure it is that simple. I never sold a single copy of Crafty, and have no future plans to do so. Someone else making money from my work doesn't really "damage" me unless it prevents me from making money...

In any case, I don't consider it worth the time, trouble and expense. The truth is enough, here. At least for me. Fabien may feel differently since he did sell something, and the FSF might feel differently due to their interest in protecting the GPL.

[kingliveson]

[...] I have paid for Rybka 3 and Rybka 4, which are looking more and more suspicious, and this is what I meant when I wrote I had been cheated (like all other Rybka costumers). [...]

I seriously doubt there is any evidence of code copying in Rybka 3 and especially, 4.

[hyatt]

This is all purely academic and has nothing to do with actual real world events or people:

Having said that, you are crazy if you think your 30 years of man hours developing crafty cannot be monetized in a civil court. JM has cited UK primer on UK copyright law. Take my word for it, those basic principles governing measurement of dams for IP theft are same in US. It doesn't matter that crafty is not commercial. It COULD be. The measurement of the dams is no walk in the park for sure. But, it correlates to the profits obtained using the stolen IP. Very complicated indeed, when stolen IP is mixed with other stolen IP and combined with some marginally or significantly original code. The jury questions would ask what % of program source code is from author A and what % is from author B. How much profits did Thief make with program? A gets profits*% and B gets his profits * %.

Practical aspect is different ball game of course. Are assets locatable in USA? None specific? Then ct order garnishing profits from continued sale of thief's program. Or turnover receivership of business. All kinds of ways to get the money. And if there's plenty of money to be had, there's an IP law firm that would do it on a contingency. Distributors of the thief's program would be put on notice.

[in case there's any confusion, the above has absolutely nothing to do with Rybka or Vas. It is purely an academic discussion. Vas is a completely honest person who has never and would never take someone's code.]

Personally, I am not going to sue anyone. Clearly Vas violated the Crafty license agreement since it is quite explicit in that any program using any of the Crafty code cannot then participate in any chess event, period. However, with no "physical damages" a legal action is just a way of giving a lot of money to lawyers with no possible remuneration. Not to mention the time involved. I'd as soon make a donation to an attorney and avoid losing the time.

Wait a minute there. IF someone takes your property and makes money with it, that person is unjustly enriched. The damages correlate to the extent of the enrichment, i.e., the thief's profits. (not to mention separate statutory damages for copyright infringement) [Legal blah blah: this is not legal advice]

I am not sure it is that simple. I never sold a single copy of Crafty, and have no future plans to do so. Someone else making money from my work doesn't really "damage" me unless it prevents me from making money...

In any case, I don't consider it worth the time, trouble and expense. The truth is enough, here. At least for me. Fabien may feel differently since he did sell something, and the FSF might feel differently due to their interest in protecting the GPL.

A civil case deals with punitive and actual damages. I don't see any actual damages since I have been giving away copies of Crafty since 1995, so there is no way I lost any money. My reputation has not been affected by this. Punitive is a different issue, but it is also quite dicey as to how and when such damages are awarded. And in my case, for what gain? I prefer less worry and bother, not more, and a court case would definitely be "more". I wanted to know the truth. We are getting closer, with a few surprises along the way. Maybe there will be future surprises that make us decide that this is all acceptable at some level.

[hyatt]

[...] I have paid for Rybka 3 and Rybka 4, which are looking more and more suspicious, and this is what I meant when I wrote I had been cheated (like all other Rybka costumers). [...]

I seriously doubt there is any evidence of code copying in Rybka 3 and especially, 4.

So he copied two programs for his first to versions, and all of that code is now magically gone? I still have a lot of code in Crafty 23.5 that can be found in the earliest released versions. That's easy to check. Nobody throws a complete engine out for each new version. It would take a year or two just to get back to where you were, maybe longer. Slow road to progress...

[benstoker]

This is all purely academic and has nothing to do with actual real world events or people:

Having said that, you are crazy if you think your 30 years of man hours developing crafty cannot be monetized in a civil court. JM has cited UK primer on UK copyright law. Take my word for it, those basic principles governing measurement of dams for IP theft are same in US. It doesn't matter that crafty is not commercial. It COULD be. The measurement of the dams is no walk in the park for sure. But, it correlates to the profits obtained using the stolen IP. Very complicated indeed, when stolen IP is mixed with other stolen IP and combined with some marginally or significantly original code. The jury questions would ask what % of program source code is from author A and what % is from author B. How much profits did Thief make with program? A gets profits*% and B gets his profits * %.

Practical aspect is different ball game of course. Are assets locatable in USA? None specific? Then ct order garnishing profits from continued sale of thief's program. Or turnover receivership of business. All kinds of ways to get the money. And if there's plenty of money to be had, there's an IP law firm that would do it on a contingency. Distributors of the thief's program would be put on notice.

[in case there's any confusion, the above has absolutely nothing to do with Rybka or Vas. It is purely an academic discussion. Vas is a completely honest person who has never and would never take someone's code.]

Personally, I am not going to sue anyone. Clearly Vas violated the Crafty license agreement since it is quite explicit in that any program using any of the Crafty code cannot then participate in any chess event, period. However, with no "physical damages" a legal action is just a way of giving a lot of money to lawyers with no possible remuneration. Not to mention the time involved. I'd as soon make a donation to an attorney and avoid losing the time.

Wait a minute there. IF someone takes your property and makes money with it, that person is unjustly enriched. The damages correlate to the extent of the enrichment, i.e., the thief's profits. (not to mention separate statutory damages for copyright infringement) [Legal blah blah: this is not legal advice]

I am not sure it is that simple. I never sold a single copy of Crafty, and have no future plans to do so. Someone else making money from my work doesn't really "damage" me unless it prevents me from making money...

In any case, I don't consider it worth the time, trouble and expense. The truth is enough, here. At least for me. Fabien may feel differently since he did sell something, and the FSF might feel differently due to their interest in protecting the GPL.

A civil case deals with punitive and actual damages. I don't see any actual damages since I have been giving away copies of Crafty since 1995, so there is no way I lost any money. My reputation has not been affected by this. Punitive is a different issue, but it is also quite dicey as to how and when such damages are awarded. And in my case, for what gain? I prefer less worry and bother, not more, and a court case would definitely be "more". I wanted to know the truth. We are getting closer, with a few surprises along the way. Maybe there will be future surprises that make us decide that this is all acceptable at some level.

Your not losing money is not the issue. If someone chooses NOT to make money with his IP, and someone else steals that IP and does make money with it, the dams will be measured by the profits gained from the thief's use of the stolen IP. That's just the law. And, furthermore, the IP claimant gets his attorney fees and there are potential civil statutory penalties over and above the actuals. But, again, this is only academic discussion.

[Olivier Deville]

[...] I have paid for Rybka 3 and Rybka 4, which are looking more and more suspicious, and this is what I meant when I wrote I had been cheated (like all other Rybka costumers). [...]

I seriously doubt there is any evidence of code copying in Rybka 3 and especially, 4.

You are right. I expect Rybka 2-3-4 to be derived from Rybka 1, but nothing has been shown so far.

I do understand and respect people who disagree with what I have done. But what really matters to me is authors opinion. And none of them sent me hate mail so far

Olivier