bob wrote:Rolf wrote:bob wrote:chrisw wrote:bob wrote:Rolf wrote:Chris, I am a bit helpless as a lay after reading so much about plagiarism. Could you elaborate a bit about CHESS TIGER who has admittedly taken parts of REBEL with approval of Ed, how this could be explained in the plagiarism dimensions of the actual debates in CCC?
If you receive permission, and give credit to the original author, it is _not_ plagiarism...
You mix academic and commercial. Plagiarism is legally irrelevent in commercial world, it's relevent but not illegal when discussing with fellow experts, and it's very relevent and could get you the sack in academia but still not illegal.
Two terms. Plagiarism and copyright. Both are related. Copyright is _not_ irrelevant in the commercial world. Plagiarism is simply a twist on that where someone uses someone else's work to make themselves look better.
Could you at least make a little example for that in a computerchess environment? Say h2 thing you explained were really absolutely new, explained privatim, then another could take it without source ans it would only be plagiarism? And copyright is always connected with patent? What is a patent in computerchess? Please elaborate a bit for me. You know that members wont read it because I asked you so we are alone in this room. <cough>
Bob, you are not personally interested in defending Christophe. I ask because you always come quickly when something is being asked about his program and he doesnt want or cant answer himself? Sorry for such intimate questions.
First, I write some code to do something. if I explain it to you, or you look at it yourself, using that "algorithm or idea" is _not_ plagiarism, nor is it a copyright violation, nor anything else. If you had signed a non-disclosure agreement with me, you would not be able to reveal the idea to others.
Now, if you _copy_ the code, that is both a copyright violation since you are copying something I wrote, and that is illegal. Second, if you then try to claim this copied work as your own, it becomes plagiarism on top of the copyright violation.
Notice that nowhere in that was an idea mentioned in the context of plagiarism or copyright. Just actual code.
The first paragraphe is interesting for me. I can look at a code just what Vas admitted has done with Fruit. Now he's a good man and understands the tricks but he knows that he shouldnt copy. So Vas reflects that code and begins to seek his own code technique [here I'm helpless again because I could only compare it with speech]. Let's assume Fabien was very clever in his coding. Perhaps one gets the impression that nothing could be "improved". Would that mean that if I understood it all I still could never use that optimal code because it's protected, because copying is forbidden? Where is the logic? Ok from common sense I would then invent some veiling just for the purpose to make it look different and something of my own. Then it would be ok again. But I would only do that if my code in total wouldnt become weaker with my veils.
All together I must admit that if that from you above is true, I cant see where Vas should have or even could have violated something. If he did it with copying something smaller and gave it away for free, where is the damage?
If then later he continued to improve his code, and then sold it, where is then the beef for critics?
Finally I dont get why you stress that you never talked about ideas but only code. Because we argued that someone good enough reads the code and understands the ideas. If he then begins to encode these ideas with his own code tech where then is the beef again?
Now it's up to you if this is making sense in degrees or if I missed totally what the topic is standing for. Many excuses to the members who are already enough frustrated by my questions... But I can only advise all that one can also learn out of weak questions after an old teacher wisdom.
