GenoM wrote:
Graham, I was asking you a simple question:
Are you a law expert?
Because law is mainly matter of interpreting facts.
And as it's obvious you aren't an expert in this field how could you be so brave to state that things are "legally dubious", "legally foolish" and finally "of a questionable legal status"?
No, but the CCC moderators are aware of the both the charter plus the fact that the forum owner can be held accountable for material posted here.
Therefore they have to tread a fine line and make judgement calls on legally dubious posts. I speak from experience.
But of course, those unhappy with this come back with the age old retort of "you're suppressing free speech and open discussion."
GenoM wrote:
Graham, I was asking you a simple question:
Are you a law expert?
Because law is mainly matter of interpreting facts.
And as it's obvious you aren't an expert in this field how could you be so brave to state that things are "legally dubious", "legally foolish" and finally "of a questionable legal status"?
No, but the CCC moderators are aware of the both the charter plus the fact that the forum owner can be held accountable for material posted here.
Therefore they have to tread a fine line and make judgement calls on legally dubious posts. I speak from experience.
But of course, those unhappy with this come back with the age old retort of "you're suppressing free speech and open discussion."
Yes, free speach. It is forum here, Graham, if you didn't understand, forum and no court.
GenoM wrote:
Graham, I was asking you a simple question:
Are you a law expert?
Because law is mainly matter of interpreting facts.
And as it's obvious you aren't an expert in this field how could you be so brave to state that things are "legally dubious", "legally foolish" and finally "of a questionable legal status"?
No, but the CCC moderators are aware of the both the charter plus the fact that the forum owner can be held accountable for material posted here.
Therefore they have to tread a fine line and make judgement calls on legally dubious posts. I speak from experience.
But of course, those unhappy with this come back with the age old retort of "you're suppressing free speech and open discussion."
Yes, free speach. It is forum here, Graham, if you didn't understand, forum and no court.
This forum is subject to rules and restrictions whether we like it or not Evgenii. When members sign up, they agree to abide by those.
GenoM wrote:
Graham, I was asking you a simple question:
Are you a law expert?
Because law is mainly matter of interpreting facts.
And as it's obvious you aren't an expert in this field how could you be so brave to state that things are "legally dubious", "legally foolish" and finally "of a questionable legal status"?
No, but the CCC moderators are aware of the both the charter plus the fact that the forum owner can be held accountable for material posted here.
Therefore they have to tread a fine line and make judgement calls on legally dubious posts. I speak from experience.
But of course, those unhappy with this come back with the age old retort of "you're suppressing free speech and open discussion."
Yes, free speach. It is forum here, Graham, if you didn't understand, forum and no court.
This forum is subject to rules and restrictions whether we like it or not Evgenii. When members sign up, they agree to abide by those.
The forum is not about restrictions and rules, Graham. Forum is about discussion and freely expressing opinions. That's the main goal of the forum, not restrictions. Remember Mark 2:27 "Then Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made to meet the needs of people, and not people to meet the requirements of the Sabbath"
GenoM wrote:
The forum is not about restrictions and rules, Graham. Forum is about discussion and freely expressing opinions. That's the main goal of the forum, not restrictions. Remember Mark 2:27 "Then Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made to meet the needs of people, and not people to meet the requirements of the Sabbath"
Like I said Evgenii, I didn't write the charter, but I guess it's there for a reason. The "legally questionable" part would be there mainly for the protection of the forum owner I would imagine.
And fortunately I'm not having to judge when to apply it any more!
GenoM wrote:
The forum is not about restrictions and rules, Graham. Forum is about discussion and freely expressing opinions. That's the main goal of the forum, not restrictions. Remember Mark 2:27 "Then Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made to meet the needs of people, and not people to meet the requirements of the Sabbath"
Like I said Evgenii, I didn't write the charter, but I guess it's there for a reason. The "legally questionable" part would be there mainly for the protection of the forum owner I would imagine.
And fortunately I'm not having to judge when to apply it any more!
So, why to try be more catholic than the Pope, Graham? You've expressed your opinion pretty clear so let's remain in silence when no charter is broken instead of writing mail after mail here about hypothetical "legal" threats. Let me remember that Vasik is quite calm about this topic here and is waiting. He knows for sure better than you if there is any legal stuff involved.
GenoM wrote:
The forum is not about restrictions and rules, Graham. Forum is about discussion and freely expressing opinions. That's the main goal of the forum, not restrictions. Remember Mark 2:27 "Then Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made to meet the needs of people, and not people to meet the requirements of the Sabbath"
Like I said Evgenii, I didn't write the charter, but I guess it's there for a reason. The "legally questionable" part would be there mainly for the protection of the forum owner I would imagine.
And fortunately I'm not having to judge when to apply it any more!
So, why to try be more catholic than the Pope, Graham? You've expressed your opinion pretty clear so let's remain in silence when no charter is broken instead of writing mail after mail here about hypothetical "legal" threats. Let me remember that Vasik is quite calm about this topic here and is waiting. He knows for sure better than you if there is any legal stuff involved.
I'm not Catholic and besides, I've only been responding to the posts of others, as is my right.
I'd be more than happy to hear nothing more from the protagonists until they have a clearcut case, whichever decade that might be in.
GenoM wrote:
The forum is not about restrictions and rules, Graham. Forum is about discussion and freely expressing opinions. That's the main goal of the forum, not restrictions. Remember Mark 2:27 "Then Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made to meet the needs of people, and not people to meet the requirements of the Sabbath"
Like I said Evgenii, I didn't write the charter, but I guess it's there for a reason. The "legally questionable" part would be there mainly for the protection of the forum owner I would imagine.
And fortunately I'm not having to judge when to apply it any more!
So, why to try be more catholic than the Pope, Graham? You've expressed your opinion pretty clear so let's remain in silence when no charter is broken instead of writing mail after mail here about hypothetical "legal" threats. Let me remember that Vasik is quite calm about this topic here and is waiting. He knows for sure better than you if there is any legal stuff involved.
I'm not Catholic and besides, I've only been responding to the posts of others, as is my right.
I'd be more than happy to hear nothing more from the protagonists until they have a clearcut case, whichever decade that might be in.
What I have seen so far:
There has been enough evidence presented to prove without a shadow of a doubt that Vas studied the UCI parser in Fruit. His is very similar, but not the same. The use of strtok() inline is a good idea, and somewhat unusual.
There are some similar eval terms (of course nearly every engine has some similar eval terms).
There is some similar search functionality (of course every engine has some similar search functionality).
Of course, there is nothing wrong with that.
Perhaps there is some other important evidence I have missed.
I guess that the crimes of which people are raising the red flag there is some merit:
Clearly, Vas has learned a lot from Fruit.
But (of course) every chess programmer has learned a lot from other chess programmers. Has Vas done more than they have?
Trying to stage a trial in the court of public opinion is a bad idea in my eyes.
Even in a court trial, the person performing the examination is not allowed to call for a conclusion on the part of the witness.
I think that if the possibly injured parties are interested, they should be the ones to perform the inquiries, and they should do it through proper channels.
Now, I am not against publication of evidence and allowing us to form our own opinions, as long as it is extremely clear that what we are viewing is not misrepresented.
But proclamations of guilt or innocence are best left to a judge unless the evidence is very, very clear.
And (buy the way) plagiarism clearly does not apply in this case. We are not talking about fraudulent publication of academic or literary works that were copied without permission or acknowledgement.
Copyright violation is a possibility. I am not convinced (in either direction) that something bad has taken place {or has not taken place}.
I think that there is something very sad about this whole process.
I also think that those making charges often have a lot at stake and so it may be impossible for them to be truly neutral, even though they do not know it and really do intend to be fully neutral.
GenoM wrote:
The forum is not about restrictions and rules, Graham. Forum is about discussion and freely expressing opinions. That's the main goal of the forum, not restrictions. Remember Mark 2:27 "Then Jesus said to them, “The Sabbath was made to meet the needs of people, and not people to meet the requirements of the Sabbath"
Like I said Evgenii, I didn't write the charter, but I guess it's there for a reason. The "legally questionable" part would be there mainly for the protection of the forum owner I would imagine.
And fortunately I'm not having to judge when to apply it any more!
So, why to try be more catholic than the Pope, Graham? You've expressed your opinion pretty clear so let's remain in silence when no charter is broken instead of writing mail after mail here about hypothetical "legal" threats. Let me remember that Vasik is quite calm about this topic here and is waiting. He knows for sure better than you if there is any legal stuff involved.
I'm not Catholic and besides, I've only been responding to the posts of others, as is my right.
I'd be more than happy to hear nothing more from the protagonists until they have a clearcut case, whichever decade that might be in.
