Vas, Hyatt, Levy, ICGA, WCCC, Confusion and Nausea

[hgm]

Rule #2 says that. And if you don't want to contest it, don't waste our time whining about it here...

[wgarvin]

If code is public domain, without an author being available to grant permission, you cannot use it in WCCC. It is as simple as that.

Show me WCCC rule which says that?

http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/e ... .php?id=12

2. Each program must be the original work of the entering developers. Programming teams whose code is derived from or including game-playing code written by others must name all other authors, or the source of such code, in their submission details. Programs which are discovered to be close derivatives of others (e.g., by playing nearly all moves the same), may be declared invalid by the Tournament Director after seeking expert advice. For this purpose a listing of all game-related code running on the system must be available on demand to the Tournament Director.

(emphasis is mine.)

The program must be the "original work" of the entering developers. If you copy code written by someone who is not one of the "entering developers", the program is not your "original work" any more -- it's a derived work.

I believe the purpose of the second bolded part of the rule, is to make sure enough info is available to judge if its "original work" or not. But concealing some of the author(s) of the code is enough to break the rule and disqualify your entry.

Its possible you might be able to use a small amount of code, or some "auxiliary code" that was not central to the game-playing parts of the program (e.g. some utility functions for opening files on win32, or doing bit-scans, or something like that). Even if you don't know who wrote it, you can still comply with the rule by identifying the "source of such code" (e.g. if you copied it from a public domain library, you could list the name and version number of that library). As long as the organizers believe your program is still your "original work", then it should be fine.

[Milos]

Rule #2 says that. And if you don't want to contest it, don't waste our time whining about it here...

Rule #2 mentions absolutely nothing about the permission to use code. Not a single word. So what you write is just your BS interpretation of the rules.

And nobody invited you to discuss so you are free to leave whenever you want. I, on the other hand, choose to stay whether you like it or not.

And to repeat, let us see some recent Craft's WCCC application form. I really wonder what's inside.

[Milos]

The program must be the "original work" of the entering developers. If you copy code written by someone who is not one of the "entering developers", the program is not your "original work" any more -- it's a derived work.

"Original work" is such an ambiguous phrase which without proper definition is completely useless. You have a right for your interpretation the same way I have and yours is not in any way superior to mine.

In addition is Anthony's name on Rondo's application for WCCC 2010? Just giving permission to Zach is not enough. If his name is not on the application form following your interpretation Rondo should be immediately banned.

I believe the purpose of the second bolded part of the rule, is to make sure enough info is available to judge if its "original work" or not. But concealing some of the author(s) of the code is enough to break the rule and disqualify your entry.

So what happens if we take a famous program by author who is "an organizer" and who interprets the rules on his own will and by a chance there is no mentioning of an author of a public domain code he used in his engine (such as for example "opening files on win32, or doing bit-scans")???

As long as the organizers believe your program is still your "original work", then it should be fine.

In a well defined (not autocratic) system following the clear (non-ambiguous) rules there is no such a thing as "believing"...

[hgm]

As long as my interpretation is the same as that of IGCA, there is only a single person BS-ing in this thread.

[Zach Wegner]

In addition is Anthony's name on Rondo's application for WCCC 2010?

Yes he was (in case anyone really cares).

[Milos]

As long as my interpretation is the same as that of IGCA, there is only a single person BS-ing in this thread.

Where you can read the official ICGA interpretation of the rules (on ICGA website there is nothing but the rules themselves)???

As far as I can see your interpretation is the same as Bob's nothing more nothing less. So you actually want to say that Bob=ICGA?
In that case I congratulate you coz you just proved my point. (L'etat C'est Moi - Louis XIV aka Bob Hyatt)

[Milos]

In addition is Anthony's name on Rondo's application for WCCC 2010?

Yes he was (in case anyone really cares).

Thx, I had no intention in trying to disqualify Rondo in any way, I was just trying to prove the uselessness of the interpretation of the rules by some.

[Terry McCracken]

As long as my interpretation is the same as that of IGCA, there is only a single person BS-ing in this thread.

Where you can read the official ICGA interpretation of the rules (on ICGA website there is nothing but the rules themselves)???

As far as I can see your interpretation is the same as Bob's nothing more nothing less. So you actually want to say that Bob=ICGA?
In that case I congratulate you coz you just proved my point. (L'etat C'est Moi - Louis XIV aka Bob Hyatt)

Not just Bob, Devid Levy et al.

I think they know what it's intended meaning is.

Could these arguments get more silly?

[Milos]

As long as my interpretation is the same as that of IGCA, there is only a single person BS-ing in this thread.

Where you can read the official ICGA interpretation of the rules (on ICGA website there is nothing but the rules themselves)???

As far as I can see your interpretation is the same as Bob's nothing more nothing less. So you actually want to say that Bob=ICGA?
In that case I congratulate you coz you just proved my point. (L'etat C'est Moi - Louis XIV aka Bob Hyatt)

Not just Bob, Devid Levy et al.

I think they know what it's intended meaning is.

If they know why they don't clearly write it instead of having couple of ambiguous and badly defined rules?
But then there would be no possibility to have a main non-written rule which is the only rule applied in reality:
"Program is original if Bob decides so!"