ICGA Rule 2 discussion

[hgm]

You mean this is the currently valid ICGA rule #2?

2.
Each program must be the original work of the entering
developers, possibly with the inclusion of game
playing code and/or data from other sources for which
the entering developers have a legal right of use.
Developers whose code is derived from or includes
(1) game-playing code; and/or (2) data written by
others, must name (a) all the other developers of whom
they are aware; and (b) the source of such code
and/or data, in their tournament registration details.

It seems to make my interpretation even more explicit. Anyone obviously has the legal right to use public domain code. You don't need to name developers you are not aware of, which in particular also implies such developers do not have to co-sign the registration form.

There should be more explicit rules on how to prevent multiple entry of the same code, however.

[Rebel]

Free (strong) open-sources are the main reason we are in this mess, the way out is to agree on how we deal with them.

Yes, we agree about that.

But Bob is right, they should not be allowed to participate 10 times if other codes can participate only once. OTOH, it is equally unsatisfactory if they could not participate at all. If others are allowed to participate with their code once, why should that be different for open source? There is nothing intrinsically evil or criminal in opening your source, so why should there be a penalty on it?

But Bob already stated in another thread that limiting the number of derivatives of the same open-source program to just one would work for him. And, as I pointed out, it does not seem to even violate the current WCCC rule #2. So I think we already passed that point successfully.

Good, and it's an important step forwards.

Bob's major concern seems to be the 'right of first refusal'. If there is a conflict between two people that want to enter the same game-playing code as (part of) their program, should they somehow be treated asymmetrically, one being able to claim priority over the other? (E.g. by defining something like an 'original author', or a 'main author'.) Or is it acceptable that when, say Toga and Fruit both want to enter, Toga would be admitted and Fabien would be barred?

Apart from the fact that this is mostly hypothetical, it seems that Bob is more conservative in this respect than I would be (i.e. by stamping GPL on your code you give up all rights to it, including the right to enter it in tournaments).

You raise 2 important points that are closely connected to each other.

I think they deserve a new thread.

For now I am happy with the progress.

[michiguel]

Free (strong) open-sources are the main reason we are in this mess, the way out is to agree on how we deal with them.

Yes, we agree about that.

But Bob is right, they should not be allowed to participate 10 times if other codes can participate only once. OTOH, it is equally unsatisfactory if they could not participate at all. If others are allowed to participate with their code once, why should that be different for open source? There is nothing intrinsically evil or criminal in opening your source, so why should there be a penalty on it?

But Bob already stated in another thread that limiting the number of derivatives of the same open-source program to just one would work for him. And, as I pointed out, it does not seem to even violate the current WCCC rule #2. So I think we already passed that point successfully.

Good, and it's an important step forwards.

Bob's major concern seems to be the 'right of first refusal'. If there is a conflict between two people that want to enter the same game-playing code as (part of) their program, should they somehow be treated asymmetrically, one being able to claim priority over the other? (E.g. by defining something like an 'original author', or a 'main author'.) Or is it acceptable that when, say Toga and Fruit both want to enter, Toga would be admitted and Fabien would be barred?

Apart from the fact that this is mostly hypothetical, it seems that Bob is more conservative in this respect than I would be (i.e. by stamping GPL on your code you give up all rights to it, including the right to enter it in tournaments).

You raise 2 important points that are closely connected to each other.

I think they deserve a new thread.

For now I am happy with the progress.

As things are now, I can go to the next ICGA tournament with Glaurung 2.2, declare it is a derivative (with or without a minor modification), declare Tord Romstad in the list of co-authors (I do not need his permission, and in fact, he publicly said nobody needs his permission because of GPL) and compete. Nobody can stop me. In fact, I do not even need to release the code! (since I may not be distributing it). The funny thing is that I need to release the code to the TD if the TD asks for the binary, which is part of the rules.

At that point, if SF wants to enter and respect the rules, it will have to list Tord as a co-author, and since it was listed before by me, it cannot enter. Since there is no clarification about this, the only reasonable alternative is first come first serve. Tord cannot come and say he prefers SF rather than glaurung 2.2mab. He already waved its rights to do that when he released it as GPL.

The biggest issue with the GPL, is that it may not be always clear (at least theoretically) who the authors are. HGM pointed this out already. By design, it does not matter for GPL, which makes it a problematic license for these type of activities as we know them. It fact, GPL created a culture in which acknowledging is not needed. Many do, but not widespread.

The license that would suit it best is the old and original BSD open source license, in which is required to list and acknowledge who contributed to each piece of code. That license was considered a pest, because if you build an OS, you need to keep a list of gazillion authors.

I am not providing a solution or anything...

Miguel

[hgm]

As things are now, I can go to the next ICGA tournament with Glaurung 2.2, declare it is a derivative (with or without a minor modification), declare Tord Romstad in the list of co-authors (I do not need his permission, and in fact, he publicly said nobody needs his permission because of GPL) and compete. Nobody can stop me. In fact, I do not even need to release the code! (since I may not be distributing it). The funny thing is that I need to release the code to the TD if the TD asks for the binary, which is part of the rules.

At that point, if SF wants to enter and respect the rules, it will have to list Tord as a co-author, and since it was listed before by me, it cannot enter.

Yes, so far so good. Note that all this seems into perfect agreement with the current ICGA rules, and is not the result of some proposed modification.

Since there is no clarification about this, the only reasonable alternative is first come first serve. Tord cannot come and say he prefers SF rather than glaurung 2.2mab. He already waved its rights to do that when he released it as GPL.

Here it starts to be a bit more controversial. "First come, first served" does not seem "the only reasonable alternative" to me at all. The usual clauseis "in situations that not covered by these rules the tournament director will decide as he sees fit". This is certainly less than ideal, but probably better than "first come, first served". My take on this is, let them play a qualifier. As you know very well that Glaurung 2.2. will be crushed by Stockfish, and your hypothetical self that was pulling this trick will know it as well, you will withdraw as soon as you are notified that Stockfish entered, and you would have to play a qualifier about it. Problem solved without any extra effort.

We don't want the Gaviota team, by then Stockfish' main competitor for the title, block entry of Stockfish to enhance its own chances by sneakily sending a 'front' to beat the always tardy Tord to the registration!

Of course it becomes a bit of a different matter when you forged Glaurung 2.2 into a cluster version, and managed to organize a 16,384-CPU cluster to run it, against a measly 64 10GHz cores for Stockfish. But would it be unreasonable that your cluster-Glaurung would be admitted, rather than Stockfish, if it is indeed stronger? Would Tord really care much? One way or the other, he will still be World Champion.

[michiguel]

As things are now, I can go to the next ICGA tournament with Glaurung 2.2, declare it is a derivative (with or without a minor modification), declare Tord Romstad in the list of co-authors (I do not need his permission, and in fact, he publicly said nobody needs his permission because of GPL) and compete. Nobody can stop me. In fact, I do not even need to release the code! (since I may not be distributing it). The funny thing is that I need to release the code to the TD if the TD asks for the binary, which is part of the rules.

At that point, if SF wants to enter and respect the rules, it will have to list Tord as a co-author, and since it was listed before by me, it cannot enter.

Yes, so far so good. Note that all this seems into perfect agreement with the current ICGA rules, and is not the result of some proposed modification.

Since there is no clarification about this, the only reasonable alternative is first come first serve. Tord cannot come and say he prefers SF rather than glaurung 2.2mab. He already waved its rights to do that when he released it as GPL.

Here it starts to be a bit more controversial. "First come, first served" does not seem "the only reasonable alternative" to me at all. The usual clauseis "in situations that not covered by these rules the tournament director will decide as he sees fit". This is certainly less than ideal, but probably better than "first come, first served". My take on this is, let them play a qualifier. As you know very well that Glaurung 2.2. will be crushed by Stockfish, and your hypothetical self that was pulling this trick will know it as well, you will withdraw as soon as you are notified that Stockfish entered, and you would have to play a qualifier about it. Problem solved without any extra effort.

We don't want the Gaviota team, by then Stockfish' main competitor for the title, block entry of Stockfish to enhance its own chances by sneakily sending a 'front' to beat the always tardy Tord to the registration!

Of course it becomes a bit of a different matter when you forged Glaurung 2.2 into a cluster version, and managed to organize a 16,384-CPU cluster to run it, against a measly 64 10GHz cores for Stockfish. But would it be unreasonable that your cluster-Glaurung would be admitted, rather than Stockfish, if it is indeed stronger? Would Tord really care much? One way or the other, he will still be World Champion.

When I said "the only reasonable alternative", I meant "the only reasonable alternative to interpret the current rules" because of there is no clarification. I certainly did not mean this is how it should be. What I do know is this should be addressed and spelled out.

Miguel

[hgm]

If there is no clarification, the TD decides. That is the default rule anywhere. The TD is boss, but has to respect the rules. Not being constraint by any rules, he can do as he seems fit.

I don't think that is very satisfactory, because people should know what they can expect.

[Rebel]

As things are now, I can go to the next ICGA tournament with Glaurung 2.2, declare it is a derivative (with or without a minor modification), declare Tord Romstad in the list of co-authors (I do not need his permission, and in fact, he publicly said nobody needs his permission because of GPL) and compete. Nobody can stop me. In fact, I do not even need to release the code! (since I may not be distributing it). The funny thing is that I need to release the code to the TD if the TD asks for the binary, which is part of the rules.

At that point, if SF wants to enter and respect the rules, it will have to list Tord as a co-author, and since it was listed before by me, it cannot enter.

Yes, so far so good. Note that all this seems into perfect agreement with the current ICGA rules, and is not the result of some proposed modification.

I have to see it before I believe it. Houdini as an example again. Hypothetical of course but it is fundamental, an honest Robert subscribes, acceptance (imo) will result in many ICGA member resignations. I don't see that happen in the CSVN case. YMMV.

[Rebel]

If there is no clarification, the TD decides. That is the default rule anywhere. The TD is boss, but has to respect the rules. Not being constraint by any rules, he can do as he seems fit.

I don't think that is very satisfactory, because people should know what they can expect.

There should be a rule for that. Whatever the TD decides there will be 2 opposite camps, not funny for a TD to be in, a good rule can prevent that.

[hgm]

Exactly.

But we don't have to stretch the imagination too far in constructing hypothetical cases. Suppose Ivanhoe tried to enter. They pride themselves on being derived from Ippolyt.

What reason exactly do you think those resigning members would give for not having it participate? "It is too strong for us, so it must not be allowed"? Or "It is a Rybka clone"?

[Rebel]

Exactly.

But we don't have to stretch the imagination too far in constructing hypothetical cases. Suppose Ivanhoe tried to enter. They pride themselves on being derived from Ippolyt.

What reason exactly do you think those resigning members would give for not having it participate? "It is too strong for us, so it must not be allowed"? Or "It is a Rybka clone"?

Not the strength but I think the general disgust for allowing a derivative work. I think many are not ready. Remember what happened when the CSVN allowed Rybka to participate.