Programmer code of honor (reminder)

[Rebel]

Due to the ongoing discussion in the main forum it's maybe a good moment for a reminder to what (in the meantime) 34 chess programmers have subscribed and obliged themselves to.

It's about openness, honesty, transparency and fair competition in the middle of a world of strong open sources and the temptation that comes with it.

If you (as a chess programmer) are not aware of the Programmer Code please consider it.

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

Thank you for your time.

Ed

[wgarvin]

What is the rationale behind asking programmers to agree not to reverse-engineer the work of other programmers without their express permission?

That seems ridiculous to me, and I'm surprised at some of the programmers who have apparently agreed to it.

[Rebel]

What is the rationale behind asking programmers to agree not to reverse-engineer the work of other programmers without their express permission?

That seems ridiculous to me, and I'm surprised at some of the programmers who have apparently agreed to it.

It's illegal in many countries.

[flok]

What is the rationale behind asking programmers to agree not to reverse-engineer the work of other programmers without their express permission?

That seems ridiculous to me, and I'm surprised at some of the programmers who have apparently agreed to it.

It's illegal in many countries.

So?

[zullil]

What is the rationale behind asking programmers to agree not to reverse-engineer the work of other programmers without their express permission?

That seems ridiculous to me, and I'm surprised at some of the programmers who have apparently agreed to it.

It's illegal in many countries.

So?

So perhaps many people consider it an undesirable activity?

No one is forced to sign the statement, or to refrain from reverse-engineering other peoples' engines.

[bob]

What is the rationale behind asking programmers to agree not to reverse-engineer the work of other programmers without their express permission?

That seems ridiculous to me, and I'm surprised at some of the programmers who have apparently agreed to it.

That was one of the reasons I did not sign it, because I have been asked more than once now by the ICGA to do exactly that to investigate programs accused of being non-original.

Of course signing it is meaningless anyway, it is not a legal document so there are no consequences for signing "yes" and doing "no".

[bob]

What is the rationale behind asking programmers to agree not to reverse-engineer the work of other programmers without their express permission?

That seems ridiculous to me, and I'm surprised at some of the programmers who have apparently agreed to it.

It's illegal in many countries.

So?

So perhaps many people consider it an undesirable activity?

No one is forced to sign the statement, or to refrain from reverse-engineering other peoples' engines.

It is not illegal in many countries, and sometimes it is necessary to enforce rules, just like it is used to enforce software copyright / patent issues.

[jdart]

The U.S. is not one of the countries, generally speaking, but most software that is obtained under a license agreement forbids reverse-engineering.

--Jon

[Rebel]

EU - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_en ... pean_Union

In a nutshell, it's okay to RE software for investigation purposes, suspicion of plagiarism for instance. It's not okay to publish or to use the information for a competitive product.

US is not far behind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_en ... ted_States

Bottom line RE - if the chess programmer intended to share his secrets he would release his source code.

I know this RE clause is an obstacle for some programmers but with the CPW and so many strong open sources around, why would one need RE?

[Henk]

Ok, I removed the piece square table values from my chess program. They were not mine. I copied them from the piece square table contest. Costs me 100 ELO or so. My previous ones are crap.