Yes, OK, he copied, but was it so esential?

[slobo]

Yes? And where is the document that stablish between those two kinds of liberties?
Fern

What document? Could you explain it better?

Perhaps I have to explain it better before:
Rybka turned to be very useful for the chess community only after it was "raped" by chess programing fans reverse engeneering; but Vas, himself, he never had any intention to be useful for the same chess community.

[fern]

To explain Rybka superiory with a matter of time available seems to me very very speculative. It supposes that in the same year or two -if that was the time saved- the other guys were been capable of the same thing.

But:
a) we do not know how much time is needed to produce the decisive code Vas did
b) no matter the answer to the precedent question, we do not know if other programmer could have used equally efectively that time.
C) The decisiveness of that extra code is the key which mus be explained by oitself, not for the supposed time neccesary to do it.

Fern

[Terry McCracken]

To explain Rybka superiory with a matter of time available seems to me very very speculative. It supposes that in the same year or two -if that was the time saved- the other guys were been capable of the same thing.

But:
a) we do not know how much time is needed to produce the decisive code Vas did
b) no matter the answer to the precedent question, we do not know if other programmer could have used equally efectively that time.
C) The decisiveness of that extra code is the key which mus be explained by oitself, not for the supposed time neccesary to do it.

Fern

Sure we do...look at Robert Houdart/Houdini. It's a Red Herring/Ignoratio elenchi, it's not the point or reason to strip Vas of his standing in the computer chess community. Copying Code Verbatim Is! It's Verboten!

[slobo]

To explain Rybka superiory with a matter of time available seems to me very very speculative. It supposes that in the same year or two -if that was the time saved- the other guys were been capable of the same thing.

But:
a) we do not know how much time is needed to produce the decisive code Vas did
b) no matter the answer to the precedent question, we do not know if other programmer could have used equally efectively that time.
C) The decisiveness of that extra code is the key which mus be explained by oitself, not for the supposed time neccesary to do it.

Fern

I don´t see much sense in answering these questions. Yes, no doubt, Vas did a big job, but, let´s not forget: he did it based on other peoples work and aiming, exclusively, his own benefit. So, if we now are talking about his merits for the Chess Community, we should have in mind that it was possible only thanks to his enemies reverse engeneering. I mean, he was obliged to be useful for the community, it was not his own intention, and this is a sad point of our story, a normal one, however, for selfish people like himself.

I must say that I am against taking him away world champion titles. I think that those titles should have been credited to Fabien and to him, at the same time. They are co-authors.

[Don]

Still nobody asnwer my question: that code he took is that important to make Rybka what it is?

Yes. However it's not relevant unless you simply want to discuss this philosophically. The issue is not whether he did anything illegal, it's whether he violated the ICGA rules and whether they should enforce their rules. I don't see the point to having rules that are just ignored so I think most of us are barking up the wrong tree - a lot of people are upset that they are enforcing the rules they set but don't seem to be complaining about the rules themselves. That's not too odd, most people don't react to thing until they see that it might matter.

Your question is an interesting question philosophically though. Another way to ask this question has been asked on this forum too. If I start with a clone of another program and then improve it, does it become my program? When does it become my program?

Do you have an answer for that?

I believe that some here, and I don't know if you are one of them, believes that it immediately becomes your program. Hardly anyone is saying that out loud because they probably believe it's not socially acceptable, so this handicaps them by forcing them to try to make their point without being honest about what their point is. It's hard to make a point when you have to "beat around the bush."

It makes no sense to me unless you just "bite the bullet" and embrace the concept that whatever YOU do, belongs to ME (and everyone else) and you have no special rights to it. That means I should be able to take your books and publish them as my own.

[fern]

I consider that once you took something, then If and only IF on that ground you create something significantly better, then the overall work is yours. On that ground I believe Rybka belong really to Vas even if he took chunks from here and there.
Of course you can ask what "significant" means. In our realm of chess engines, I gues significant is something at least 100 or perhaps 200 elo stronger. In this as in everything, difficult to cut borders without a strong component of subjetivity.
I want to insist here that this logic does not apply to arts. You simply cannot take one chapter of El Quijote to write a better 120 chapter new Quijte. The piece taken still is coming from other work of art and, what is more important is valuable by itself.
In sciences and technology the parts are not valuable as things in themselves, but as tools for an overall practical or theoretical construction.

I know you have said to me that programming is an art, but although even the most arid piece of scientific work can be verbally described as such -they talk of "elegant universe", elegant maths, etc- , still the bricks that make the building are not valuable in themselves as the bricks of a work of art are.

Hope my posture is clear regards
Fern

[Rein Halbersma]

It makes no sense to me unless you just "bite the bullet" and embrace the concept that whatever YOU do, belongs to ME (and everyone else) and you have no special rights to it. That means I should be able to take your books and publish them as my own.

See this nice paper by Google's chief economist on how copyright law evolved
http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~hal ... yright.pdf

Just a small quote:

Code: Select all

"The U.S. Copyright Act of 1790 was modeled on the Statute of Queen Anne, and offered 
a 14-year monopoly to American authors, along with a 14-year renewal. Note carefully 
the emphasis on "American." Foreign authors' works were not protected by the American 
law. In contrast, many other advanced countries such as Denmark, Prussia, England, 
France, and Belgium had laws respecting the rights of foreign authors. By 1850, only the 
US, Russia and the Ottoman Empire refused to recognize international copyright.
  
The advantages of this policy to the US were quite significant: they had a public hungry 
for books, and a publishing industry happy to provide them. A ready supply of markettested 
books were available from England. Publishing in the US was virtually a no-risk 
enterprise: whatever sold well in England was likely to do well in the US.  

American publishers paid agents in England to acquire popular works, which were then 
rushed to the US and set in type. Competition was intense, and the first to publish had an 
advantage of only days before they themselves were subject to competition. As might be 
expected, this unbridled competition led to very low prices: in 1843 Dickens's Christmas 
Carol sold for six cents in the US and $2.50 in England."

[oreopoulos]

He copied enough that he saved a _lot_ of time he would have had to spend writing said code himself. I'd imagine that if you offered any 100m sprinter a one step head-start, they'd take it and win every race...

A really unfortunate example mr Hyatt. A really bad argument from a smart guy. There was no "write an engine faster" competition.

If you want to make an argument, please inform us what has been copied that would take him more than a couple of hours to write. Assume programming skills equal to yours to start with.

Everything here is done about hurted egos. Its a really pity.

[oreopoulos]

To explain Rybka superiory with a matter of time available seems to me very very speculative. It supposes that in the same year or two -if that was the time saved- the other guys were been capable of the same thing.

But:
a) we do not know how much time is needed to produce the decisive code Vas did
b) no matter the answer to the precedent question, we do not know if other programmer could have used equally efectively that time.
C) The decisiveness of that extra code is the key which mus be explained by oitself, not for the supposed time neccesary to do it.

Fern

I don´t see much sense in answering these questions. Yes, no doubt, Vas did a big job, but, let´s not forget: he did it based on other peoples work and aiming, exclusively, his own benefit. So, if we now are talking about his merits for the Chess Community, we should have in mind that it was possible only thanks to his enemies reverse engeneering. I mean, he was obliged to be useful for the community, it was not his own intention, and this is a sad point of our story, a normal one, however, for selfish people like himself.

I must say that I am against taking him away world champion titles. I think that those titles should have been credited to Fabien and to him, at the same time. They are co-authors.

You do not see any sense because it strips away all arguments.
You say his work was based on works of others. Is that something new. Everything is based on the work of others. Is the code he copy pasted UNIQUE. Has it been used 1-2 times before or it is common knowledge to every chess programmer out there

So if i copy uci handling what is the resulting engine a clone?? Is a chess engine a string handling competition?

In science we start from where others stopped. We do not need to reinvent everything. If you publish a paper and i find a proof sequence i like i can use it. period. Big proofs are collections of smaller ones + new ideas.

Noone answers by listing 1.2.3 was has been copied that is important and not common knowledge.

[Don]

He copied enough that he saved a _lot_ of time he would have had to spend writing said code himself. I'd imagine that if you offered any 100m sprinter a one step head-start, they'd take it and win every race...

A really unfortunate example mr Hyatt. A really bad argument from a smart guy. There was no "write an engine faster" competition.

Competitive computer chess IS indeed a "write an engine faster" competition and you show a lack of understanding of you don't get that.

It's the same in almost all technology as a matter of fact. Ask Intel and AMD for instance and see how the feel about giving away their technology to the other side.

I think you seriously embarrassed yourself by pretending you were qualified to correct Bob Hyatt.

If you want to make an argument, please inform us what has been copied that would take him more than a couple of hours to write. Assume programming skills equal to yours to start with.

Everything here is done about hurted egos. Its a really pity.