Vas did contribute!

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I disagree
Vas clearly contributed to open source even if it was not his intention.
Uri

Nonsense.
In that sense every piece of any commercial, closed source program (even Windows 7) contribute to open source, because everything can be decompiled or disassembled....

No you are wrong.
What Uri says is that Rybka has been reversed engineered so Vas has contributed to open source. Windows 7 haven't been reversed engineered so they have not contributed to open source.

Using simple words:

Vas contributed to open source chess engines against his will ....
Dr.D

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

I disagree
Vas clearly contributed to open source even if it was not his intention.
Uri

Nonsense.
In that sense every piece of any commercial, closed source program (even Windows 7) contribute to open source, because everything can be decompiled or disassembled....

No you are wrong.
What Uri says is that Rybka has been reversed engineered so Vas has contributed to open source. Windows 7 haven't been reversed engineered so they have not contributed to open source.

No, I don't think I'm wrong.
Vas didn't contribute to open source, but those who decompiled Rybka and made it open source. Illegally, of course.
And how do you know that nobody has reverse-engineered pieces of Windows yet and used it in other (maybe open source) programs?

Cool,so we can at least hope to see a frankenstein Linux operation system based on Windows 7

[Volker Pittlik]

...
Cool,so we can at least hope to see a frankenstein Linux operation system based on Windows 7

Sure: Ubuntu 04/10 Loony Lunatic.

[Christopher Conkie]

I disagree
Vas clearly contributed to open source even if it was not his intention.
Uri

Nonsense.
In that sense every piece of any commercial, closed source program (even Windows 7) contribute to open source, because everything can be decompiled or disassembled....

No you are wrong.
What Uri says is that Rybka has been reversed engineered so Vas has contributed to open source. Windows 7 haven't been reversed engineered so they have not contributed to open source.

Using simple words:

Vas contributed to open source chess engines against his will ....
Dr.D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqWJZArrZ3E

http://www.metrolyrics.com/crushed-by-t ... en-17.html

1.18

Some are nurses
Some steal purses
Some are workers
Some are not



Christopher

[slobo]

Everywhere I read, 'Vas only took and did not give anything in return'.

This is just simply not true!!

.

You should never "pick up" only what you like, like Vas. You should look at the spirit of my original message, as Vas should have looked at the original spirit of the open source idea.

Now, what was the "spirit of my original message"?

He never contributed by disseminating ideas which was the original idea of open sorce programs. His contribution is limited on his final product, the strongest engine befere the coming of Ippolit-RobboLito.

[mcostalba]

Vas clearly contributed to open source even if it was not his intention.

I am not an english native speaker, so perhaps my following comment is wrong.

But for what I understand "contribution" is something unavoidably linked to the wish of doing so.

From english on-line dictionary, for the word "contribution"

- "the part played by a person in bringing about a result"

- "a voluntary gift (as of money or service or ideas) made to some worthwhile cause"

- "act of giving in common with others for a common purpose especially to a charity"


So I don't see _any_ contribution at all in this case because there is the lack of the essential ingredient of "voluntarity"

It is like if someone steal my car. I have not contributed to the thief healty for this action. Nor I would like to do so.

[Christopher Conkie]

His contribution is limited on his final product, the strongest engine befere the coming of Ippolit-RobboLito.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9V4GtHjWRc

http://lyrics.filestube.com/song/944edc ... hting.html

We can do the whole L.P. if you like?

Penthouse and Pavement....

You are on the pavement.

Christopher

[Terry McCracken]

Everywhere I read, 'Vas only took and did not give anything in return'.

This is just simply not true!!

.

You should never "pick up" only what you like, like Vas. You should look at the spirit of my original message, as Vas should have looked at the original spirit of the open source idea.

Now, what was the "spirit of my original message"?

He never contributed by disseminating ideas which was the original idea of open sorce programs. His contribution is limited on his final product, the strongest engine befere the coming of Ippolit-RobboLito.

There's a big difference. Vas gleaned ideas and went commercial like so many others here in the past. He, like his predecessors worked hard to get Rybka to the top.

The people you're defending are outright crooks and haven't done anything really new for themselves. They didn't take ideas and implement them they stole the work of others outright and are distributing it causing serious damage to the commercial industry.

You're just making a lot of noise defending criminals thus causing more damage!

[Christopher Conkie]

They didn't take ideas and implement them they stole the work of others outright and are distributing it

How is it they have come up with something stronger than anything before without implementing anything new?

It's not. It's bust.

[Uri Blass]

Vas clearly contributed to open source even if it was not his intention.

I am not an english native speaker, so perhaps my following comment is wrong.

But for what I understand "contribution" is something unavoidably linked to the wish of doing so.

From english on-line dictionary, for the word "contribution"

- "the part played by a person in bringing about a result"

- "a voluntary gift (as of money or service or ideas) made to some worthwhile cause"

- "act of giving in common with others for a common purpose especially to a charity"


So I don't see _any_ contribution at all in this case because there is the lack of the essential ingredient of "voluntarity"

It is like if someone steal my car. I have not contributed to the thief healty for this action. Nor I would like to do so.

1)I am also not a native english speaker so it is possible that you are right.

I still see a difference relative to the case of stealing a car.

Ideas are not protected and prograqmmers can expect other programmers to discover ideas by reverse engineering so every programmer of top program take a significant risk that people are going to discover his ideas.

With cars it is not the same and not every person who has a car take a significant risk that people are going to steal his car.

2)I am also against the word stealing when we talk about author rights because I feel the things are not the same.

There are significant number of people who do not justify stealing a car but justify doing something against the author rights.

It is clear to me that if we have a new rule that stealing is allowed then the situation is going to be very bad for us.

I am not sure if the situation in the world is going to be worse in case of a new rule that there are no author rights.

I can clearly see possible gains
For example people may release free source of better programs when today they are afraid to do it because they know it is against the author rights and it is not only in chess.

Maybe it is better if somebody release some better windows that is based on the existing windows of microsoft when microsoft cannot sue him by claiming that he does not have the author rights.

I am not supporting acting against the rules and doing it today but at least it is not clear to me that changing the rule is a bad idea when it is clear to me that changing the rule and allowing everybody to steal is a bad idea.

Uri