Rolf wrote:Justice is always depending on the definitions that were valid at the time in question. If there were none and someone intentiously left the building, lleaving behind his open source without restrictions, why shouldnt peers have taken something?
Because taking it is against the law. How much clearer could it be?
The original author of the code owns the copyright in it. Except for certain exemptions in some countries, you can not distribute their code, or make derivative works, without their permission (such as a license from them).
It doesn't matter if he said he was "leaving computer chess" or anything else. You cannot simply steal someone's code, even if they have abandoned it. If you didn't originally write the code yourself, you need a license to use it.
Fabien L. provided the code under the GPL license, so that is one option. Another one would have been to contact him directly and negotiate some other kind of license (e.g. paying him money for a commercial license). It sounds like since 2007, he no longer owns the copyright since it was transferred to the FSF. So that is no longer an option. Now the only way to get a license to that code is to get it from the FSF, and they provide it under the GPL and are not likely to provide it under any other terms.
As I said, it makes no sense if I took part in a heated debate because I'm not a native speaker and no matter of the quality of my arguments readers will dislike me for disadvantages in my vocabulary. You already are trying to provoke with such a sentence. As a foreigner I dont have the expertise to let you run into the void, just like I would do this in my mother's language. I think I made my points and since I'm not a lawyer but a psychological observer I have no obsession to win any further argument. I'm already happy that I'm not a scapegoat like Vas. It'a a good style coming with old age that I have no problem with respecting the here reigning rules.
I wished that we could unite in peace rather than causing confrontation. As human being we are making mistakes. But then it looks strange if we continually blame those who made mistakes, in our perception at least. Whited sepulcher that is.
But again I wish all the very best.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
As I said, it makes no sense if I took part in a heated debate because I'm not a native speaker and no matter of the quality of my arguments.............
Such a consideration has never stopped you before, Rolf. Why stop now??
In short, the internet reveils the worst of people's character.
Let me give you an example, and this is from the highest ranked official in computerchess. After having reveiled that the story of a Cuban Master was probably false that should have brought him to the Japan WCCC, David Levy, although having declared that this remained private, went public with his final verdict "I believe that you are a liar". That was in summer 2010. I wished a President wouldnt use such a vocabulary under any thinkable or justified conditions, nor that he should go into public with such a story. The problem was solved and everything else doesnt interest all over the internet. Who wanted to throw the first stone at this Cuban, we know so little details about why he might have felt pressed to invent such a story. The core of it could have been well reported without original text from emails and stuff like that.
IMO David takes too many things in a too personally assumed manner. I see the same wrong also in Vasik's case with the life ban. Concerning the old age of David it just leaves me speechless. Because this is my answer for you why actually I have a more balanced and forgiving view on the human comedy. Instead of loving and making peace I see sublime aggressiveness, unforgivingness and a hidden satisfaction instead that a chairman would show some interest into the unknown truth of the whole affair. For all because we have such a small community that we almost know everybody by his prename.
A President more so as a senior, should slve such conflicts with respect also for those who are seemingly proven of some wrong. But at that point negotiations in the background should begin how this could be solved. So, a President should send signals that he wanted a solution in kind.
Why not trying to solve our biggest actual conflict with some mediation? Why not giving it a try? Let's find something that saves the so called "face" in the sense of honor.
Please tell me what moves the ICGA and its members could imagine under what conditions.
David, sorry, but couldnt you give it a try? In silent?
I propose Dann Corbit and Graham Banks as candidates for such a process.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
Rolf wrote:.......I propose Dann Corbit and Graham Banks as candidates for such a process.
No thanks Rolf. I'm staying out of it.
I thank you for your decent style and ask you if you want to be our next President of the ICGA? Also here I expect a professional and firm "No", thank you. Everything else would be silly.
I hope that the members understand that you are the right man in no matter what position. All the best.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
Rolf wrote:In short, the internet reveils the worst of people's character.
Let me give you an example, and this is from the highest ranked official in computerchess. After having reveiled that the story of a Cuban Master was probably false that should have brought him to the Japan WCCC, David Levy, although having declared that this remained private, went public with his final verdict "I believe that you are a liar". That was in summer 2010. I wished a President wouldnt use such a vocabulary under any thinkable or justified conditions, nor that he should go into public with such a story. The problem was solved and everything else doesnt interest all over the internet. Who wanted to throw the first stone at this Cuban, we know so little details about why he might have felt pressed to invent such a story. The core of it could have been well reported without original text from emails and stuff like that.
IMO David takes too many things in a too personally assumed manner. I see the same wrong also in Vasik's case with the life ban. Concerning the old age of David it just leaves me speechless. Because this is my answer for you why actually I have a more balanced and forgiving view on the human comedy. Instead of loving and making peace I see sublime aggressiveness, unforgivingness and a hidden satisfaction instead that a chairman would show some interest into the unknown truth of the whole affair. For all because we have such a small community that we almost know everybody by his prename.
A President more so as a senior, should slve such conflicts with respect also for those who are seemingly proven of some wrong. But at that point negotiations in the background should begin how this could be solved. So, a President should send signals that he wanted a solution in kind.
Why not trying to solve our biggest actual conflict with some mediation? Why not giving it a try? Let's find something that saves the so called "face" in the sense of honor.
Please tell me what moves the ICGA and its members could imagine under what conditions.
David, sorry, but couldnt you give it a try? In silent?
I propose Dann Corbit and Graham Banks as candidates for such a process.
If you want to discuss this with Dr. David Levy, write him! He's not likely to read it here.
Of course all you want to do is spread more lies and disinformation.
You're the Town Clown and that's all you've ever been good at and good for.
Rolf wrote:In short, the internet reveils the worst of people's character.
Let me give you an example, and this is from the highest ranked official in computerchess. After having reveiled that the story of a Cuban Master was probably false that should have brought him to the Japan WCCC, David Levy, although having declared that this remained private, went public with his final verdict "I believe that you are a liar". That was in summer 2010. I wished a President wouldnt use such a vocabulary under any thinkable or justified conditions, nor that he should go into public with such a story. The problem was solved and everything else doesnt interest all over the internet. Who wanted to throw the first stone at this Cuban, we know so little details about why he might have felt pressed to invent such a story. The core of it could have been well reported without original text from emails and stuff like that.
IMO David takes too many things in a too personally assumed manner. I see the same wrong also in Vasik's case with the life ban. Concerning the old age of David it just leaves me speechless. Because this is my answer for you why actually I have a more balanced and forgiving view on the human comedy. Instead of loving and making peace I see sublime aggressiveness, unforgivingness and a hidden satisfaction instead that a chairman would show some interest into the unknown truth of the whole affair. For all because we have such a small community that we almost know everybody by his prename.
A President more so as a senior, should slve such conflicts with respect also for those who are seemingly proven of some wrong. But at that point negotiations in the background should begin how this could be solved. So, a President should send signals that he wanted a solution in kind.
Why not trying to solve our biggest actual conflict with some mediation? Why not giving it a try? Let's find something that saves the so called "face" in the sense of honor.
Please tell me what moves the ICGA and its members could imagine under what conditions.
David, sorry, but couldnt you give it a try? In silent?
I propose Dann Corbit and Graham Banks as candidates for such a process.
If you want to discuss this with Dr. David Levy, write him! He's not likely to read it here.
Of course all you want to do is spread more lies and disinformation.
You're the Town Clown and that's all you've ever been good at and good for.
Rolf wrote:In short, the internet reveils the worst of people's character.
Let me give you an example, and this is from the highest ranked official in computerchess. After having reveiled that the story of a Cuban Master was probably false that should have brought him to the Japan WCCC, David Levy, although having declared that this remained private, went public with his final verdict "I believe that you are a liar". That was in summer 2010. I wished a President wouldnt use such a vocabulary under any thinkable or justified conditions, nor that he should go into public with such a story. The problem was solved and everything else doesnt interest all over the internet. Who wanted to throw the first stone at this Cuban, we know so little details about why he might have felt pressed to invent such a story. The core of it could have been well reported without original text from emails and stuff like that.
IMO David takes too many things in a too personally assumed manner. I see the same wrong also in Vasik's case with the life ban. Concerning the old age of David it just leaves me speechless. Because this is my answer for you why actually I have a more balanced and forgiving view on the human comedy. Instead of loving and making peace I see sublime aggressiveness, unforgivingness and a hidden satisfaction instead that a chairman would show some interest into the unknown truth of the whole affair. For all because we have such a small community that we almost know everybody by his prename.
A President more so as a senior, should slve such conflicts with respect also for those who are seemingly proven of some wrong. But at that point negotiations in the background should begin how this could be solved. So, a President should send signals that he wanted a solution in kind.
Why not trying to solve our biggest actual conflict with some mediation? Why not giving it a try? Let's find something that saves the so called "face" in the sense of honor.
Please tell me what moves the ICGA and its members could imagine under what conditions.
David, sorry, but couldnt you give it a try? In silent?
I propose Dann Corbit and Graham Banks as candidates for such a process.
If you want to discuss this with Dr. David Levy, write him! He's not likely to read it here.
Of course all you want to do is spread more lies and disinformation.
You're the Town Clown and that's all you've ever been good at and good for.
Watchman wrote:What you don't get is that chess programmers (like any other group of specialists) have their own language use, they don't need long sentences to communicate, often half of a word is enough. Which was the case here.
"Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra."
Miguel got it, I received email from another programmer who got it.
Ed and Miguel at Talkchess.
They all got it except Bob, or did he get it after all?
"Sokath... his eyes uncovered."
Of course. Now think about why Bob took my (programmer language) the wrong way. It's not so hard if you claim to understand programmer language.
"Kiteo... his eyes closed. Shaka... when the walls fell."
And remember, it was not me who started that war 3 months back.
"The beast at Tanagra."
Were things ugly? Yes. Why? Because Bob turned an innocent remark into a false accusation because....... well that's for you to figure out.
"Zinda... his face black... his eyes red. Uzani... his army with fists open."
Also remember, it was not me who resurrected that old cow here on CCC.
"The river Temarc... in winter. Darmok on the ocean."
"Temba... at rest."
Great episode of Star Trek The Next Generation. This post made me laugh hard and long. Thanks for that, cheers.
