rodolfoleoni wrote:Don wrote:Dann Corbit wrote:rodolfoleoni wrote:Dann Corbit wrote:
.......
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