Equal treatment

[GenoM]

We're all some kind of truth seekers, Rolf, so I didn't have any bad feelings against anyone here

[Onno Garms]

I am also wandering about motives of Strelka's author so I am trying to find them. The only quite reasonnable motive is that he was trying in such a tricky way to say to all what he believed to be the truth about Rybka. May be I am wrong but this is the way I see it.

The "motive" might just be having lost the sense of moral and legality. Borders are blurred, which we can learn from the ongoing discussions what is legal and what is not. Some hardliners condemn reading other peoples published sources, some believe that a rewrite (extracting algorithms and coding the algorithms in your own style and data structures) violates the GPL, some even consider disassembling and rewriting legal. I think that the border is precisely between the latter two. But gotten used to doing the second, working in the twilight zone in many people's oppinion, for one year, the Strelka author might have developed a "different" sense of moral and right.

[hristo]

The "motive" might just be having lost the sense of moral and legality. Borders are blurred, which we can learn from the ongoing discussions what is legal and what is not. Some hardliners condemn reading other peoples published sources, some believe that a rewrite (extracting algorithms and coding the algorithms in your own style and data structures) violates the GPL,

This 'belief' has nothing to do with reality. The GPL puts no restrictions nor does it address the topic of ideas, concepts, methods and algorithms -- and in fact it couldn't since the GPL is about copyrights (user-rights) and nothing else.

What follows is only intended as an example of the opposites that we are potentially talking about and is not a full depiction of the entire situation and all possible consequences.

It is too easy to vilify others based on lofty moral standards and conjectures about what "many people consider to be right".

The more pertinent question is the one regarding software 'ideas' (algorithms ...) where you have two ways to go:
1) 'Ideas' can be protected through some legal device(s), for instance Patents.
2) 'Ideas' cannot be protected.

Consider those two options, #1 leads to major problems for all those who desire to create anything at some later time, since they will inadvertently use someone else's 'ideas'.
#2 supposedly reduces the incentive for people to come up with new 'ideas' -- I don't believe that this is true. Having #2 is more beneficial, IMO, to all users and software developers when compared to #1.

If #1 was 'the way of the world' and was in fact moral (where #2 immoral) then you have to consider that OSS is inherently immoral and should be foreclosed and people should be dissuaded from using it.

some even consider disassembling and rewriting legal. I think that the border is precisely between the latter two. But gotten used to doing the second, working in the twilight zone in many people's oppinion, for one year, the Strelka author might have developed a "different" sense of moral and right.

I'm not sure what does the "twilight zone in many people's opinion" have to do with this, especially if you consider that many of 'those' people gladly use software (free or otherwise) that incorporates ideas of commercial/proprietary products, including 'ideas' that were obtained through disassembling (analyzing) those commercial products.

I don't know what Strelka's author sense of moral 'right/wrong' is, but raising this personal aspect of the author and contemplating upon it is completely immaterial to this situation (at least at the moment).

Regards.

[Terry McCracken]

The "motive" might just be having lost the sense of moral and legality. Borders are blurred, which we can learn from the ongoing discussions what is legal and what is not. Some hardliners condemn reading other peoples published sources, some believe that a rewrite (extracting algorithms and coding the algorithms in your own style and data structures) violates the GPL,

This 'belief' has nothing to do with reality. The GPL puts no restrictions nor does it address the topic of ideas, concepts, methods and algorithms -- and in fact it couldn't since the GPL is about copyrights (user-rights) and nothing else.

What follows is only intended as an example of the opposites that we are potentially talking about and is not a full depiction of the entire situation and all possible consequences.

It is too easy to vilify others based on lofty moral standards and conjectures about what "many people consider to be right".

The more pertinent question is the one regarding software 'ideas' (algorithms ...) where you have two ways to go:
1) 'Ideas' can be protected through some legal device(s), for instance Patents.
2) 'Ideas' cannot be protected.

Consider those two options, #1 leads to major problems for all those who desire to create anything at some later time, since they will inadvertently use someone else's 'ideas'.
#2 supposedly reduces the incentive for people to come up with new 'ideas' -- I don't believe that this is true. Having #2 is more beneficial, IMO, to all users and software developers when compared to #1.

If #1 was 'the way of the world' and was in fact moral (where #2 immoral) then you have to consider that OSS is inherently immoral and should be foreclosed and people should be dissuaded from using it.

some even consider disassembling and rewriting legal. I think that the border is precisely between the latter two. But gotten used to doing the second, working in the twilight zone in many people's oppinion, for one year, the Strelka author might have developed a "different" sense of moral and right.

I'm not sure what does the "twilight zone in many people's opinion" have to do with this, especially if you consider that many of 'those' people gladly use software (free or otherwise) that incorporates ideas of commercial/proprietary products, including 'ideas' that were obtained through disassembling (analyzing) those commercial products.

I don't know what Strelka's author sense of moral 'right/wrong' is, but raising this personal aspect of the author and contemplating upon it is completely immaterial to this situation (at least at the moment).

Regards.

Long Time No See....Glad You're Back Regards,
Terry

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Manev, Manev, Manev... what a post, Rolf! And after citing my name so many times you're suggesting that i used anonimity to accuse Vasik... Its hard to follow your logic, you know.
And what Manev did was that he made a translation (poor may be, however plz dont kill me) of Ossipov' posting in russian forum.
Shame on me!

Let's try to repair that. You spoke to Ossipov, correct? You wrote in joking manner that you would tell a judge, if you were Ossipov, that you hadnt done something wrong etc, correct? You identified yourself more than neccessary with Ossipov. You are not just a neutral reporter that stands under moral protection also in my eyes. Dont you realise that the reported things you posted did harm to Vasik? I'm speaking against that harm. And up to now you seemed to miss the extension of such harm. Am I wrong, please tell me. But without further explanation you are not just the reporter. Sorry. You used too much of good humor in your reports. Hope you can read my bad English.

Having a daylight visions is a bad disease

[Onno Garms]

some believe that a rewrite (extracting algorithms and coding the algorithms in your own style and data structures) violates the GPL,

This 'belief' has nothing to do with reality. The GPL puts no restrictions nor does it address the topic of ideas, concepts, methods and algorithms

I already wrote that in another thread. Thank you for confirming.

I don't know what Strelka's author sense of moral 'right/wrong' is, but raising this personal aspect of the author and contemplating upon it is completely immaterial to this situation (at least at the moment).

Maybe you are right. I should not have replied to the question what the motive might have been.