Programmer code of honor (update)

[Joerg Oster]

Then this code of honor is not even fit for toilet paper. Damage is ONLY done by the publication of a stolen piece of RE work IF people use it / the ideas in it. If everyone would ignore it there would be no damage at all.

It is the users of REed information that are causing the damage, not those doing the RE.

In what world are you living?
So I can RE Zappa, Shredder, Rybka, Hiarcs, Houdini etc. and publish the code and everything is fine?

ABSURD!

[Rebel]

I am sure you know that presenting a 'solution' to such a problem that does not solve anything at all, for no other reason than to pretend the problem is solved, is known as 'hypocrisy'...

But of course the real hypocrisy of the (unsolved) Ippolit matter is that are those who suggest practical solutions that are open for debate and those who are standing at the side-line yelling hypocrisy and offering nothing at all.

[tpetzke]

If other people already did the demage and released source code that is free for download and nobody cared to stop them on time(the Ippolit case)
then people who look at the relevant source and are not responsible for generating it are not quilty.

Once The Genie Is Out Of The Bottle there’s no putting it back in. Once the secret idea has been published it is no longer secret, it is part of the public knowledge. The act that it has been revealed by an illegal action will be forgotten sooner or later. To demand no one can use the idea is not reasonable because the thing is out there to be discovered and sooner or later it would have been discovered independently and published anyway.

Thomas...

[hgm]

In what world are you living?
So I can RE Zappa, Shredder, Rybka, Hiarcs, Houdini etc. and publish the code and everything is fine?

Where did you get that idea?

For one, this is a copyright infringement, and thus illegal.

I just said it does not do any damage. Using the idea in a competing product is what does the damage.

[hgm]

But of course the real hypocrisy of the (unsolved) Ippolit matter is that are those who suggest practical solutions that are open for debate and those who are standing at the side-line yelling hypocrisy and offering nothing at all.

There is no hypocrisy in that at all. "Offering nothing" can be an incredibly superior offer compared to tainting your integrity by promoting immoral or criminal 'solutions' aimed at turning a blind eye to injustice. If slavery offends your sense of justice, just agree on it that these people have no soul anyway.. To feel happy in the face of genocide, just declare that these are not people... To such 'solutions', no matter how practical, I say 'no, thank you'. Infinitely better to leave the problem unsolved, so that one day perhaps a true solution will emerge.

People who RE and publish code are thiefs.
People that knowingly use such stolen code are fences.

Both are criminals.

It is as simple as that. There is no honor in waving away theft just because it suits your purpose. This thread is a joke...

[Joerg Oster]

In what world are you living?
So I can RE Zappa, Shredder, Rybka, Hiarcs, Houdini etc. and publish the code and everything is fine?

Where did you get that idea?

For one, this is a copyright infringement, and thus illegal.

I just said it does not do any damage. Using the idea in a competing product is what does the damage.

Of course, if you RE a program, look at the code just out of curiosity, and put it aside, then there is no damage done. (But I still consider this illegal in many countries.)

I thought it to be clear that we are talking about RE a chess engine and publishing the resulting code. (This might be partially true in case of Ippolit. I don't say it is, but it appears to be.)

In my opinion, this is where the damage is done! Intentionally!

That's why I was shocked by your:

It is the users of REed information that are causing the damage, not those doing the RE.

[Vinvin]

http://www.top-5000.nl/programmer_code.htm

So far 18 programmers subscribed to the code. Thanks all those who support the initiative.

Still a lot of names are missing and I want to collect the objections in order to investigate if the code needs an update.

So please contact me by email, PM or put your objections here.

Thanks.

Ed

I suggest you add the year when the form was sign ... One can swears for now and the past but an original work can become a derivative later ...

[Rebel]

People who RE and publish code are thiefs.
People that knowingly use such stolen code are fences.

In theory you are right of course.

How about a little practice.

1. You never used an IBM PC compatible computer? Isn't your current PC not a derivative? By logic like this drop your PC out of the window right now?

2. Shall the Americans give back the land to the Indians? It's stolen land.

3. Never buy something from Microsoft they stole Stacker.

etc.

I will make it a poll.

[Rebel]

http://www.top-5000.nl/programmer_code.htm

So far 18 programmers subscribed to the code. Thanks all those who support the initiative.

Still a lot of names are missing and I want to collect the objections in order to investigate if the code needs an update.

So please contact me by email, PM or put your objections here.

Thanks.

Ed

I suggest you add the year when the form was sign ... One can swears for now and the past but an original work can become a derivative later ...

+1

[Vinvin]

http://www.top-5000.nl/programmer_code.htm

So far 18 programmers subscribed to the code. Thanks all those who support the initiative.

Still a lot of names are missing and I want to collect the objections in order to investigate if the code needs an update.

So please contact me by email, PM or put your objections here.

Thanks.

Ed

I suggest you add the year when the form was sign ... One can swears for now and the past but an original work can become a derivative later ...

+1

I wonder if a derivative can becomes an inspired or an original work