Apparently Vas isn't under attack here, so why would he need defending?
Vas isnt under attack, only the origin of his program is.
That's the excuse constantly being used - yes.
His integrity and honesty are under attack through the insinuations being made.
Graham,
How do you propose moderation deals with this different to the way it is doing?
You were noderator last time, please inform us which posts you would have deleted out of this thread .......
Actually this is a moment when the campign persons are caught in their own wrong, like Bob seems to have thought that he could pre-convict Vas just on the base that Vas doesnt talk here. A hilarious event. But in the presence of attentive members this can be corrected by argument. If you now delete all these pre-condemning messages you basically help the campaign. It's as if you would argue, well, the campaign didnt function but that fact shouldnt be published. So we delete the failure and then the campaign can be re-opened with other arguments.. Well that had this effect. And it would be a total cheat from the perspective of the accused, attacked and insulted Vas. Unless you see a possibility how you could save the message that a week-long campaign with two famous programmers in the lead failed to succeed because the legality wasnt respected. More, it was tried to pre-condemn an innocent "defendant" in a biased private "court case". But then people would ask in future, and how was this done, what were the arguments? So, basically I would argue that this thread with the mean campaign should stay for our kids in future who can learn something about justice and a fair process.
I would beg you, Chris, to make a preamble to the whole then closed thread: that Vas came out as absoluely innocent inspite the many allegations being made against him. That would be as a sticky a proof of your high quality moderation period. Thank you that you withstood all kind of subito executions etc.
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
Steve B wrote:
let us suppose for discussion purposes that engine B(a closed commercially sold product) is derived from Engine A which is an open program released under the GPL Licence
what recourse is there and to whom can this charge be directed ?
must the author of Engine A make the charge?
GPL FAQ wrote:
Since the GPL is a copyright license, the copyright holders of the software are the ones who have the power to enforce the GPL. If you see a violation of the GPL, you should inform the developers of the GPL-covered software involved. They either are the copyright holders, or are connected with the copyright holders.
So even if it was felt that there was enough evidence to progress this more formely (no idea in what form that would take), it would have to be the original author that did it, as it was his copyright that was infringed. There may be some way for others to take up the case on his behalf, but I think it would complicate things.
That doesn't stop it being talked about on this forum though...
trojanfoe wrote:
That's not true, as Bob has repeatedly said. The chance that 800 lines of code will be the same from 2 different programmers, even when given the same assignment at the same time, is very very small.
Cheers,
Andy
I think that things are dependent on the assignment.
If the assignment contain 1000 small assignements that everyone of them is 10 lines then it is possible to have 800 lines that are the same without
copying.
trojanfoe wrote:
That's not true, as Bob has repeatedly said. The chance that 800 lines of code will be the same from 2 different programmers, even when given the same assignment at the same time, is very very small.
Cheers,
Andy
I think that things are dependent on the assignment.
If the assignment contain 1000 small assignements that everyone of them is 10 lines then it is possible to have 800 lines that are the same without
copying.
Uri
I think you are deliberately trying to confuse the point here. Let's assume the assignment is to create a chess engine implemented within a single executable, and take the argument from there.
Steve B wrote:
let us suppose for discussion purposes that engine B(a closed commercially sold product) is derived from Engine A which is an open program released under the GPL Licence
what recourse is there and to whom can this charge be directed ?
must the author of Engine A make the charge?
GPL FAQ wrote:
Since the GPL is a copyright license, the copyright holders of the software are the ones who have the power to enforce the GPL. If you see a violation of the GPL, you should inform the developers of the GPL-covered software involved. They either are the copyright holders, or are connected with the copyright holders.
So even if it was felt that there was enough evidence to progress this more formely (no idea in what form that would take), it would have to be the original author that did it, as it was his copyright that was infringed. There may be some way for others to take up the case on his behalf, but I think it would complicate things.
That doesn't stop it being talked about on this forum though...
Cheers,
Andy
Andy, if programmer A doesnt want to obey to your expectations? Is he guilty? Of what?
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
Rolf wrote:
Andy, if programmer A doesnt want to obey to your expectations? Is he guilty? Of what?
Assuming that I published source code under the GPL and that programmer A is someone who has used my source code to create a closed source product, and released that product, then Yes she has violated the license agreement.
Rolf wrote:
Andy, if programmer A doesnt want to obey to your expectations? Is he guilty? Of what?
Assuming that I published source code under the GPL and that programmer A is someone who has used my source code to create a closed source product, and released that product, then Yes she has violated the license agreement.
Cheers,
Andy
I was asking for the reverse situation. Programmer A has created Fruit code. And he doesnt want to make charges against programmer B (by chance the here heavily attacked Vas, author of Rybka) what is exactly what happened as reported by Dann Corbit who communicated with Fabien Letouzy. Just for your information. In case you needed it. <g>
-Popper and Lakatos are good but I'm stuck on Leibowitz
Rolf wrote:
I was asking for the reverse situation. Programmer A has created Fruit code. And he doesnt want to make charges against programmer B (by chance the here heavily attacked Vas, author of Rybka) what is exactly what happened as reported by Dann Corbit who communicated with Fabien Letouzy. Just for your information. In case you needed it. <g>
Oh I see; you are asking if the original author is 'guilty' if he doesn't persue the issue of the GPL infringement. No he's not guilty of anything is he; Use of the GPL by an author doesn't mean he has to persue every infringement he finds, or even encourages him to go looking for infringements.
Again, it doesn't stop others from looking for infringements and discussing them on public forums.
Rolf wrote:
I was asking for the reverse situation. Programmer A has created Fruit code. And he doesnt want to make charges against programmer B (by chance the here heavily attacked Vas, author of Rybka) what is exactly what happened as reported by Dann Corbit who communicated with Fabien Letouzy. Just for your information. In case you needed it. <g>
Oh I see; you are asking if the original author is 'guilty' if he doesn't persue the issue of the GPL infringement. No he's not guilty of anything is he; Use of the GPL by an author doesn't mean he has to persue every infringement he finds, or even encourages him to go looking for infringements.
Again, it doesn't stop others from looking for infringements and discussing them on public forums.
Cheers,
Andy
Trouble is that there's a fine line between discussion and character assassination.
Apparently Vas isn't under attack here, so why would he need defending?
Vas isnt under attack, only the origin of his program is.
That's the excuse constantly being used - yes.
His integrity and honesty are under attack through the insinuations being made.
Graham,
How do you propose moderation deals with this different to the way it is doing?
You were noderator last time, please inform us which posts you would have deleted out of this thread .......
Boy - that's the million dollar question!
The problem with CCC is that there's this thing called the charter which unfortunately severely inhibits this sort of discussion.
I would have thought that questioning the legality of an engine falls under the guise of a legally questionable post.
Also, by questioning the legality of an engine in such a manner, one is attacking the honesty and integrity of the engine author, so you're on the fringe with regards to the charter that prohibits personal or libellous attacks.
Unfortunately, if you enforce the charter, such discussions would therefore not be allowed. I'm not saying whether that's a good or bad thing, but that's the fact of the matter.
Hope that explains the predicament that faces the moderators in such situations.
The reason I didn't stand again was so that I no longer had to make such decisions, so I have to leave that to the current team.
Be warned though that you'll cop abuse no matter what you do, although I know that you're already aware of this.
Cheers, Graham.
PS - I think that your post on clones at the top of the page makes the position of the moderators clear.
Thanks for your helpful response
I've made the moderation position extremely clear in the announce "discussion is fine, libel is not". We've taken action in a previous clone thread which resulted in a blackmail attempt against moderators and a continuing spamming of moderator private email addresses, continuing to this day. Almost daily moderators are attacked by some of those whose nose was put out of joint at the time, despite our strenuous efforts to be as reasonable and fair as possible at that time.
In this case we have taken action to reduce and eliminate the libellous content of the threads without destroying the essential content of what is being discussed. Getting the balance of this right is extremely difficult, made more so by the 24 hour continuing nature of the threads - there's a lot of material being produced.
As previously stated, I contacted Vas early on. His position is pretty much the same as mine. Discussion on these issues is ok as long as we have ground rules (we do) and the forum operates as a medium for balanced debate (it does). Some posters are probably sliping into libel territory now and again vis a vis clone accusations. Since you bring the topic up as a form of complaint, I'll treat it as a complaint and we'll get more vigorous with the pro-active moderation policy.
