Sorry, I missed this post a couple days ago.
Chris Whittington wrote:Perhaps if I spell out the critical point in easy to understand terms, we might actually get an answer from you?
[...]
The parallel to Fruit/Rybka, is that plagiarism (the verdict levelled by the icga) is not applicable UNLESS FRUIT OWNS THE ALLEGEDLY PLAGIARISED THING.
That's why we don't talk about plagiarism of null move or minimax. Too common, too often used. Evaluation sub components likewise only you missed that in your reports.
My answer is exactly the same as what it was before: the copyright of Fruit 2.1 covers its specific choice of which evaluation (sub)components to use, no matter how pedestrian any one of these may be in and of itself. Also,
pace what Rybka Forum seems to argue/delineate, "code copying" means more than just "literal" copying of code. Refer to
Whelan versus Jaslow, for example.
Title 17 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) extends copyright protection to “literary works,” and computer programs are classified as literary works for the purposes of copyright...The copyrights of other literary works can be infringed even when there is no substantial similarity between the works’ literal elements. One can violate the copyright of a play or book by copying its plot or plot devices. [...] copyright “cannot be limited literally to the text, else a plagiarist would escape by immaterial variations”. By analogy to other literary works, it would thus appear that the copyrights of computer programs can be infringed even absent copying of the literal elements of the program. [The counterargument of the defendants was then rejected].
In this regard, the "filtration" step of AFC applies principally to things so common that almost everyone uses them, or to those necessitated by outside factors; it should not be applied to things for which there is a reasonable choice to be made, which is my understanding of "evaluation subcomponents".
Rebel @ TalkChess wrote:What Zach, Mark Watkins researched was the Rybka chess program. With the "Vas is guilty" already branded in their minds [...]
This opinion of Mr. Schröder's concerning "pre-assumed guilt" is erroneous, at least in my case. For instance, one can recall that I was quite skeptical of Yuri Osipov's attempts to make Rybka/Strelka look like Fruit, until first Rick Fadden and then Zach provided more weighty evidence.
