BB+ on the matter

[rodolfoleoni]

.......
As for knowing what they really did, anyone can know it. But if you don't know how to program you will first have to learn that. After learning that, you will have to understand how a chess engine works and then you will have to study the code. Each of these is a big cost.

.........

I mean, I can guess what they did. But I cannot know it for sure. It's all without a proof, and it'll remain that way until an Authority will be elected.

I once built an engine. Well, not really an engine, as it only was able to play random legal moves. Very funny to see mate in 1 ignored... I have an idea about compiling a source, and I guess decompiling would return source back. I'm just not sure if some reverse engineering was done.

And I'm not sure about what should be considered legal or illegal, ethical or not. Decompiline and copying parts of the code is of course unethical. Did they do so? Is decompiling and using the reverse source for better understanding how the program works illegal? Unethical? And if he uses that knowledge for building a new, original software? Is it illegal? Unethical?

Clear rules are needed.

[Dann Corbit]

.......
As for knowing what they really did, anyone can know it. But if you don't know how to program you will first have to learn that. After learning that, you will have to understand how a chess engine works and then you will have to study the code. Each of these is a big cost.

.........

I mean, I can guess what they did. But I cannot know it for sure. It's all without a proof, and it'll remain that way until an Authority will be elected.

I once built an engine. Well, not really an engine, as it only was able to play random legal moves. Very funny to see mate in 1 ignored... I have an idea about compiling a source, and I guess decompiling would return source back. I'm just not sure if some reverse engineering was done.

And I'm not sure about what should be considered legal or illegal, ethical or not. Decompiline and copying parts of the code is of course unethical. Did they do so? Is decompiling and using the reverse source for better understanding how the program works illegal? Unethical? And if he uses that knowledge for building a new, original software? Is it illegal? Unethical?

Clear rules are needed.

There are several problems here:
1. Was reverse engineering performed? (I think this is clear)
2. If so, was the reverse engineering legal? (I am not at all sure)
3. If so, was the reverse engineering moral? (I have an opinion but others may differ in their view)

Items 1 and 2 are simply factual, but even at that they are hard to know.
Item #3 is based upon the beholder's point of view.

[Dann Corbit]

George Lucas figures out clever ways to make fun movies. He does not teach the things he learns to other theatre companies. Did his movies make no contribution to society?

Check out the special features section of your DVDs. All is revealed there. They can't help themselves. In fact, they're more proud of their process than the end product, which is usually a turkey.

Oh, I've seen those. But there is a big difference between showing what you did compared to the fine details of how you did it.

[Don]

.......
As for knowing what they really did, anyone can know it. But if you don't know how to program you will first have to learn that. After learning that, you will have to understand how a chess engine works and then you will have to study the code. Each of these is a big cost.

.........

I mean, I can guess what they did. But I cannot know it for sure. It's all without a proof, and it'll remain that way until an Authority will be elected.

I once built an engine. Well, not really an engine, as it only was able to play random legal moves. Very funny to see mate in 1 ignored... I have an idea about compiling a source, and I guess decompiling would return source back. I'm just not sure if some reverse engineering was done.

And I'm not sure about what should be considered legal or illegal, ethical or not. Decompiline and copying parts of the code is of course unethical. Did they do so? Is decompiling and using the reverse source for better understanding how the program works illegal? Unethical? And if he uses that knowledge for building a new, original software? Is it illegal? Unethical?

Clear rules are needed.

The rules are clear - it's both illegal and unethical. When you purchase Rybka you agree to the following:

Code: Select all

8.	SOFTWARE
8.1	Where any Product supplied is or includes software ("Software"), this Software is licensed by us or by the relevant licensor/owner subject to the relevant end-user license agreement or other licence terms included with Software ("License Terms") and/or the Product. In addition:
8.1.1	Such Software may not be copied, adapted, translated, made available, distributed, varied, modified, disassembled, decompiled, reverse engineered or combined with any other software, save to the extent that (i) this is permitted in the License Terms, or (ii) applicable law expressly mandates such a right which cannot legally be excluded by contract.

When you reverse engineer Rybka you have broken an agreement and your character comes into question. You establish yourself as someone who makes agreements and then breaks them.

It's not relevant whether you think such a thing is a good or bad thing. If you disagree with the agreement as written, then if you are a moral person you will decline to enter into this particular covenant or else negotiate for a change of the contract.

[Don]

.......
As for knowing what they really did, anyone can know it. But if you don't know how to program you will first have to learn that. After learning that, you will have to understand how a chess engine works and then you will have to study the code. Each of these is a big cost.

.........

I mean, I can guess what they did. But I cannot know it for sure. It's all without a proof, and it'll remain that way until an Authority will be elected.

I once built an engine. Well, not really an engine, as it only was able to play random legal moves. Very funny to see mate in 1 ignored... I have an idea about compiling a source, and I guess decompiling would return source back. I'm just not sure if some reverse engineering was done.

And I'm not sure about what should be considered legal or illegal, ethical or not. Decompiline and copying parts of the code is of course unethical. Did they do so? Is decompiling and using the reverse source for better understanding how the program works illegal? Unethical? And if he uses that knowledge for building a new, original software? Is it illegal? Unethical?

Clear rules are needed.

There are several problems here:
1. Was reverse engineering performed? (I think this is clear)
2. If so, was the reverse engineering legal? (I am not at all sure)

When you purchase Rybka you agree not to reverse engineer it. So even if it's legal due to some loophole in the law, it's not ethical.

In general the law is very conservative on this stuff so I strongly suspect that you could be hauled into court and prosecuted legally if they wanted to go to the trouble. I'm sure the sales of Rybka is small potatoes and they do not have the resources to prosecute - but that is not the issue.

3. If so, was the reverse engineering moral? (I have an opinion but others may differ in their view)

Items 1 and 2 are simply factual, but even at that they are hard to know.
Item #3 is based upon the beholder's point of view.

[rodolfoleoni]

.......
As for knowing what they really did, anyone can know it. But if you don't know how to program you will first have to learn that. After learning that, you will have to understand how a chess engine works and then you will have to study the code. Each of these is a big cost.

.........

I mean, I can guess what they did. But I cannot know it for sure. It's all without a proof, and it'll remain that way until an Authority will be elected.

I once built an engine. Well, not really an engine, as it only was able to play random legal moves. Very funny to see mate in 1 ignored... I have an idea about compiling a source, and I guess decompiling would return source back. I'm just not sure if some reverse engineering was done.

And I'm not sure about what should be considered legal or illegal, ethical or not. Decompiline and copying parts of the code is of course unethical. Did they do so? Is decompiling and using the reverse source for better understanding how the program works illegal? Unethical? And if he uses that knowledge for building a new, original software? Is it illegal? Unethical?

Clear rules are needed.

There are several problems here:
1. Was reverse engineering performed? (I think this is clear)
2. If so, was the reverse engineering legal? (I am not at all sure)
3. If so, was the reverse engineering moral? (I have an opinion but others may differ in their view)

Items 1 and 2 are simply factual, but even at that they are hard to know.
Item #3 is based upon the beholder's point of view.

Next questions are a consequence:

After reverse engineering, did they

1. Copy the code or parts of it into their new source, with modifications?
1a. Would it be legal? ethical?

2. Follow the track of Rybka original code to rewrite it all?
2a. Would it be legal? ethical?

3. Write their engine on their own, with the advantage of knowing all of Rybka 3 source?
3a. Would it be legal? ethical?

[Dann Corbit]

.......
As for knowing what they really did, anyone can know it. But if you don't know how to program you will first have to learn that. After learning that, you will have to understand how a chess engine works and then you will have to study the code. Each of these is a big cost.

.........

I mean, I can guess what they did. But I cannot know it for sure. It's all without a proof, and it'll remain that way until an Authority will be elected.

I once built an engine. Well, not really an engine, as it only was able to play random legal moves. Very funny to see mate in 1 ignored... I have an idea about compiling a source, and I guess decompiling would return source back. I'm just not sure if some reverse engineering was done.

And I'm not sure about what should be considered legal or illegal, ethical or not. Decompiline and copying parts of the code is of course unethical. Did they do so? Is decompiling and using the reverse source for better understanding how the program works illegal? Unethical? And if he uses that knowledge for building a new, original software? Is it illegal? Unethical?

Clear rules are needed.

The rules are clear - it's both illegal and unethical. When you purchase Rybka you agree to the following:

Code: Select all

8.	SOFTWARE
8.1	Where any Product supplied is or includes software ("Software"), this Software is licensed by us or by the relevant licensor/owner subject to the relevant end-user license agreement or other licence terms included with Software ("License Terms") and/or the Product. In addition:
8.1.1	Such Software may not be copied, adapted, translated, made available, distributed, varied, modified, disassembled, decompiled, reverse engineered or combined with any other software, save to the extent that (i) this is permitted in the License Terms, or (ii) applicable law expressly mandates such a right which cannot legally be excluded by contract.

When you reverse engineer Rybka you have broken an agreement and your character comes into question. You establish yourself as someone who makes agreements and then breaks them.

It's not relevant whether you think such a thing is a good or bad thing. If you disagree with the agreement as written, then if you are a moral person you will decline to enter into this particular covenant or else negotiate for a change of the contract.

The first Rybka Beta did not have this same formal language. It basically said you can use it for any purpose.

And you can put any language you want into a product license, reverse engineering for educational purposes is always legal. You cannot evaporate that with something you print on the package.

The moral issue is separate, I agree.

[Dann Corbit]

.......
As for knowing what they really did, anyone can know it. But if you don't know how to program you will first have to learn that. After learning that, you will have to understand how a chess engine works and then you will have to study the code. Each of these is a big cost.

.........

I mean, I can guess what they did. But I cannot know it for sure. It's all without a proof, and it'll remain that way until an Authority will be elected.

I once built an engine. Well, not really an engine, as it only was able to play random legal moves. Very funny to see mate in 1 ignored... I have an idea about compiling a source, and I guess decompiling would return source back. I'm just not sure if some reverse engineering was done.

And I'm not sure about what should be considered legal or illegal, ethical or not. Decompiline and copying parts of the code is of course unethical. Did they do so? Is decompiling and using the reverse source for better understanding how the program works illegal? Unethical? And if he uses that knowledge for building a new, original software? Is it illegal? Unethical?

Clear rules are needed.

There are several problems here:
1. Was reverse engineering performed? (I think this is clear)
2. If so, was the reverse engineering legal? (I am not at all sure)
3. If so, was the reverse engineering moral? (I have an opinion but others may differ in their view)

Items 1 and 2 are simply factual, but even at that they are hard to know.
Item #3 is based upon the beholder's point of view.

Next questions are a consequence:

After reverse engineering, did they

1. Copy the code or parts of it into their new source, with modifications?
1a. Would it be legal? ethical?

2. Follow the track of Rybka original code to rewrite it all?
2a. Would it be legal? ethical?

3. Write their engine on their own, with the advantage of knowing all of Rybka 3 source?
3a. Would it be legal? ethical?

In order to have an accurate and reliable understanding, you would have ask a software law attourney.

Here is my basic understanding:
1. It is always legal to reverse engineer software for purely educational purposes.
2. It is always legal to reverse engineer software to provide binary compatiblity with software interfaces exposed by the product. MS-DOS was reverse engineered, for instance, by more than one company and they won the court battle.

There are many kinds of reverse engineering that are definitely illegal.
Exactly what these are and where the line is that you cannot cross, I do not know.

It is a complicated subject.

[rodolfoleoni]

.......
As for knowing what they really did, anyone can know it. But if you don't know how to program you will first have to learn that. After learning that, you will have to understand how a chess engine works and then you will have to study the code. Each of these is a big cost.

.........

I mean, I can guess what they did. But I cannot know it for sure. It's all without a proof, and it'll remain that way until an Authority will be elected.

I once built an engine. Well, not really an engine, as it only was able to play random legal moves. Very funny to see mate in 1 ignored... I have an idea about compiling a source, and I guess decompiling would return source back. I'm just not sure if some reverse engineering was done.

And I'm not sure about what should be considered legal or illegal, ethical or not. Decompiline and copying parts of the code is of course unethical. Did they do so? Is decompiling and using the reverse source for better understanding how the program works illegal? Unethical? And if he uses that knowledge for building a new, original software? Is it illegal? Unethical?

Clear rules are needed.

There are several problems here:
1. Was reverse engineering performed? (I think this is clear)
2. If so, was the reverse engineering legal? (I am not at all sure)

When you purchase Rybka you agree not to reverse engineer it. So even if it's legal due to some loophole in the law, it's not ethical.

In general the law is very conservative on this stuff so I strongly suspect that you could be hauled into court and prosecuted legally if they wanted to go to the trouble. I'm sure the sales of Rybka is small potatoes and they do not have the resources to prosecute - but that is not the issue.

3. If so, was the reverse engineering moral? (I have an opinion but others may differ in their view)

Items 1 and 2 are simply factual, but even at that they are hard to know.
Item #3 is based upon the beholder's point of view.

There's no much money in computer chess, and thats one more reason to have an Authority within a "Computer Chess Federation". If we assume that Vas cannot haul them into a court, than nobody can, if his rights are violated. Unless he's a million dollar man with the hobby of chess programming. Until an Authority is made, and clear rules are written, any conjecture can be done about any engine.

The more time passes, the more I'm convinced Richard decided fine in keeping his Baron private...

[Dann Corbit]

.......
As for knowing what they really did, anyone can know it. But if you don't know how to program you will first have to learn that. After learning that, you will have to understand how a chess engine works and then you will have to study the code. Each of these is a big cost.

.........

I mean, I can guess what they did. But I cannot know it for sure. It's all without a proof, and it'll remain that way until an Authority will be elected.

I once built an engine. Well, not really an engine, as it only was able to play random legal moves. Very funny to see mate in 1 ignored... I have an idea about compiling a source, and I guess decompiling would return source back. I'm just not sure if some reverse engineering was done.

And I'm not sure about what should be considered legal or illegal, ethical or not. Decompiline and copying parts of the code is of course unethical. Did they do so? Is decompiling and using the reverse source for better understanding how the program works illegal? Unethical? And if he uses that knowledge for building a new, original software? Is it illegal? Unethical?

Clear rules are needed.

There are several problems here:
1. Was reverse engineering performed? (I think this is clear)
2. If so, was the reverse engineering legal? (I am not at all sure)

When you purchase Rybka you agree not to reverse engineer it. So even if it's legal due to some loophole in the law, it's not ethical.

In general the law is very conservative on this stuff so I strongly suspect that you could be hauled into court and prosecuted legally if they wanted to go to the trouble. I'm sure the sales of Rybka is small potatoes and they do not have the resources to prosecute - but that is not the issue.

3. If so, was the reverse engineering moral? (I have an opinion but others may differ in their view)

Items 1 and 2 are simply factual, but even at that they are hard to know.
Item #3 is based upon the beholder's point of view.

There's no much money in computer chess, and thats one more reason to have an Authority within a "Computer Chess Federation". If we assume that Vas cannot haul them into a court, than nobody can, if his rights are violated. Unless he's a million dollar man with the hobby of chess programming. Until an Authority is made, and clear rules are written, any conjecture can be done about any engine.

The more time passes, the more I'm convinced Richard decided fine in keeping his Baron private...

Here is my take on it:
Anyone talented enough with software development to create a correct and working chess engine can make a *LOT* more money doing any other kind of software development. So they are greatly under-appreciated.

People who write chess programs (whether for a living or just for a hobby) do it for a love of the game and because of the challenge. None of them are doing it to get rich (or if they are, they are definitely going to be disappointed).

So, the programmers who decide to try to finance their hobby by selling the programs (most of them have a "day job" like Amir Ban does, for instance) spend thousands of hours working on their programs and as soon as it is released, self-appointed Robin Hoods put them on warez sites.

Then the programmers are loudly booed because they did not give their program away, or it contains a software defect, or they don't give away their source code, etc.

Underappreciated and reviled, the labor of their love goes unrequited.
"Computer chess programmer" is right beneath "Street mime" on the jobs list, as I see it. Perhaps a shade above "Asparagras picker in Moses Lake, WA"

IMO-YMMV