TalkChess.com

slobo wrote:

Alexander Schmidt wrote:

michiguel wrote:

Alexander Schmidt wrote:

michiguel wrote: Vas may have picked them, did not steal them.

There are different opinions.

We are talking about ideas, so it is not a matter of opinion. You cannot steal what it has been offered openly to you.

In regards to code, there has been (unfounded until proven) implications in this forum that has nothing to do with my comment. I found disgusting the concept that a programmer "stole" ideas from open sources. This is as ridiculous as stealing ideas from books. With the same criteria, every single one of the programmers here "stole" ideas from Knuth.

I also found disgusting the comparison between a serious programmer that revolutionized the field with someone who hide his/her/their name/s and reverse engineered code from other places, whether it is from Rybka or some other program. I may even understand to give the benefit of the doubt to the these alleged modern Robin Hoods, but taking this opportunity to mud VR's name once again is beyond ridiculous.

For sure there where more similaries between Fruit 2.1 and Rybka 1 Beta than between Ippolit and Rybka 2/3.

There were promises to show the similarities between F2.1 and R1 beyond the UCI parser and that never happened. Besides, it is irrelevant to judge the behavior of Mr. Robin Hood.

Miguel

Taking ideas from open source is of course OK. Thats the basis of the open source idea

With stealing I mean taking the code and use it for your own program, no matter if it is the UCI parser only, or the whole program. In both cases someone uses the work of others for a own project without permission.

In case of decompiling and taking ideas, I would also say this is stealing, because there is no permission for decompiling in the terms of use. Also stealing of stolen material is still stealing

The original open source idea was to help other open source ideas to be born and benefit a computer chess community as a whole, not to benefit a reduced number of individuals.

But, suddenly, we had a "smart guy" who decided to "pick up" some ideas and get commercial.

Well, it is also one of possibilities, but it was not the original idea of open source authors, and who decides to change the "spirit of the open source idea" should make an agreement with open source authors whose ideas have been used, and pay them copyrights. These copyrights don´t exist in the original open source idea, but they do exist for those who does not accept the original open source idea, those who decides to "pick up" freely what they want and get commercial.

Some Argentinians have problems to get it.

michiguel wrote:

slobo wrote:

Alexander Schmidt wrote:

michiguel wrote:

Alexander Schmidt wrote:

michiguel wrote: Vas may have picked them, did not steal them.

There are different opinions.

We are talking about ideas, so it is not a matter of opinion. You cannot steal what it has been offered openly to you.

In regards to code, there has been (unfounded until proven) implications in this forum that has nothing to do with my comment. I found disgusting the concept that a programmer "stole" ideas from open sources. This is as ridiculous as stealing ideas from books. With the same criteria, every single one of the programmers here "stole" ideas from Knuth.

I also found disgusting the comparison between a serious programmer that revolutionized the field with someone who hide his/her/their name/s and reverse engineered code from other places, whether it is from Rybka or some other program. I may even understand to give the benefit of the doubt to the these alleged modern Robin Hoods, but taking this opportunity to mud VR's name once again is beyond ridiculous.

For sure there where more similaries between Fruit 2.1 and Rybka 1 Beta than between Ippolit and Rybka 2/3.

There were promises to show the similarities between F2.1 and R1 beyond the UCI parser and that never happened. Besides, it is irrelevant to judge the behavior of Mr. Robin Hood.

Miguel

Taking ideas from open source is of course OK. Thats the basis of the open source idea

With stealing I mean taking the code and use it for your own program, no matter if it is the UCI parser only, or the whole program. In both cases someone uses the work of others for a own project without permission.

In case of decompiling and taking ideas, I would also say this is stealing, because there is no permission for decompiling in the terms of use. Also stealing of stolen material is still stealing

The original open source idea was to help other open source ideas to be born and benefit a computer chess community as a whole, not to benefit a reduced number of individuals.

But, suddenly, we had a "smart guy" who decided to "pick up" some ideas and get commercial.

Well, it is also one of possibilities, but it was not the original idea of open source authors, and who decides to change the "spirit of the open source idea" should make an agreement with open source authors whose ideas have been used, and pay them copyrights. These copyrights don´t exist in the original open source idea, but they do exist for those who does not accept the original open source idea, those who decides to "pick up" freely what they want and get commercial.

Some Argentinians have problems to get it.

Looks like you have problems to stick to the point and slightly drift to a path that may lead to ad hominems. It is not about me, or my nationality. I am not interested in this typical "discussions". I truly suspected that you were trolling from minute one, but since I was not sure I wanted to explain how science, technology and dissemination of ideas work on those areas, and the separation of private and public enterprises. It is not clear for the bulk of the society, and I thought that my comments could have contributed. But, you are only interesting in bashing Vas. This is not about him either, it is about some Robin Hoods and the arrogance of imparting pseudo-justice in their own hands.

Miguel

slobo wrote:

michiguel wrote:

slobo wrote:

Alexander Schmidt wrote:

michiguel wrote:

Alexander Schmidt wrote:

michiguel wrote: Vas may have picked them, did not steal them.

There are different opinions.

We are talking about ideas, so it is not a matter of opinion. You cannot steal what it has been offered openly to you.

In regards to code, there has been (unfounded until proven) implications in this forum that has nothing to do with my comment. I found disgusting the concept that a programmer "stole" ideas from open sources. This is as ridiculous as stealing ideas from books. With the same criteria, every single one of the programmers here "stole" ideas from Knuth.

I also found disgusting the comparison between a serious programmer that revolutionized the field with someone who hide his/her/their name/s and reverse engineered code from other places, whether it is from Rybka or some other program. I may even understand to give the benefit of the doubt to the these alleged modern Robin Hoods, but taking this opportunity to mud VR's name once again is beyond ridiculous.

For sure there where more similaries between Fruit 2.1 and Rybka 1 Beta than between Ippolit and Rybka 2/3.

There were promises to show the similarities between F2.1 and R1 beyond the UCI parser and that never happened. Besides, it is irrelevant to judge the behavior of Mr. Robin Hood.

Miguel

Taking ideas from open source is of course OK. Thats the basis of the open source idea

With stealing I mean taking the code and use it for your own program, no matter if it is the UCI parser only, or the whole program. In both cases someone uses the work of others for a own project without permission.

In case of decompiling and taking ideas, I would also say this is stealing, because there is no permission for decompiling in the terms of use. Also stealing of stolen material is still stealing

The original open source idea was to help other open source ideas to be born and benefit a computer chess community as a whole, not to benefit a reduced number of individuals.

But, suddenly, we had a "smart guy" who decided to "pick up" some ideas and get commercial.

Well, it is also one of possibilities, but it was not the original idea of open source authors, and who decides to change the "spirit of the open source idea" should make an agreement with open source authors whose ideas have been used, and pay them copyrights. These copyrights don´t exist in the original open source idea, but they do exist for those who does not accept the original open source idea, those who decides to "pick up" freely what they want and get commercial.

Some Argentinians have problems to get it.

Looks like you have problems to stick to the point and slightly drift to a path that may lead to ad hominems. It is not about me, or my nationality. I am not interested in this typical "discussions". I truly suspected that you were trolling from minute one, but since I was not sure I wanted to explain how science, technology and dissemination of ideas work on those areas, and the separation of private and public enterprises. It is not clear for the bulk of the society, and I thought that my comments could have contributed. But, you are only interesting in bashing Vas. This is not about him either, it is about some Robin Hoods and the arrogance of imparting pseudo-justice in their own hands.

Miguel

Your ethics is about free market, and you are right within its limits.
My ethics is about human beings, and that´s what you have problems to understand.

We are talking two different languages.

Now, sorry, I have no time anymore for you. I am going to test RobboLito 0.085.

SzG wrote:

Terry McCracken wrote: It may be illegal to use that software.

AFAIK, it comes without licence so how could it be illegal to use it before crime has been proven?

slobo wrote: My ethics is about human beings, and that´s what you have problems to understand.

We are talking two different languages.

Now, sorry, I have no time anymore for you. I am going to test RobboLito 0.085.

Dr.Wael Deeb wrote:

SzG wrote:

Terry McCracken wrote: It may be illegal to use that software.

AFAIK, it comes without licence so how could it be illegal to use it before crime has been proven?

Vas said that it's a clone of Rybka....period....so bow out and say the holly words as much as you could:

I believe in Vas,I believe in Vas....

SzG wrote:

Terry McCracken wrote: It may be illegal to use that software.

AFAIK, it comes without licence so how could it be illegal to use it before crime has been proven?

Graham Banks wrote:

slobo wrote: My ethics is about human beings, and that´s what you have problems to understand.

We are talking two different languages.

Now, sorry, I have no time anymore for you. I am going to test RobboLito 0.085.

You have ethics? Shit, no-one would ever have picked it.

Terry McCracken wrote:

SzG wrote:

Terry McCracken wrote: It may be illegal to use that software.

AFAIK, it comes without licence so how could it be illegal to use it before crime has been proven?

It really doesn't matter if it's legal to use it, it's unethical.

That's the real issue. Don't support highly suspicious software, more than suspicious.