Yes, I believe that it is reasonable. The one who runs with the idea ('A' in your example) is willing to risk his time and money to create a business out of his own 'idea', which 'idea' might or might not be easily attainable. If this 'idea' was obvious or trivial then his risk is increased since 'B' ('C', 'X', etc.) can easily stumble on that same 'idea' and 'A' would be out of money and time and will be looking for a new job. However, if the 'idea' is not trivial (as in "change this value from 5 to 7" and off you go) then it makes even more sense for 'A' to try and develop it further -- assuming, of course, that 'daylight robberies' are not considered normal.bob wrote:I didn't say what you are thinking. I said the analogy doesn't apply because of the fact that you pay to take classes. But let's take just two people here. A asks B (and others) about many technical details he does not understand. He asks them about very complex ideas that have been revealed but which he does not understand some aspects of. As B is working on something brand new, he also answers questions about that. A now uses all of that information to write a program, and as he stumbles along, he finds something that has not been identified as "good" although B might have given him a pointer into that direction. A now takes this, develops it, and gives B nothing in return for all the help.hristo wrote:Robert,bob wrote:For me, that analogy doesn't work. Here's why. At the university, there is a specific "quid-pro-quo" between faculty and students. Students pay tuition, which pays our salaries. We, in turn, teach the students about various subjects. There is a two-way interchange.hristo wrote:Robert,bob wrote:OK, then what about the people that come here, ask questions, get lots of ideas and algorithms from active programmers, then they find a new idea, hide it and go commercial. I think they are "hooligans" just as much as this case.Eelco de Groot wrote:I don't really want to get in on this discussion, but I don't really understand this. Publishing the sources from strelka was of course no friendly act. The people that do this, they are just the equivalent of programming hooligans, or whatever term you want to come up with, they do this for the attention they are getting and the interest people have in learning about programming ideas that were not meant to be made public by the author.Guetti wrote:It appears that it was ethically wrong to disassemble Rybka in the first place, but I think it was the best decision to make the source available to all people, instead of making them available to only 'selected' people. As soon as some persons got the source, and could analyze or modify it, I felt that it was only fair if everybody had the chance to do so. So I'm glad the sources are available now. Furthermore, the Rybka version it derives from is 2 years old, as I understand.
Is it okay to rob a bank as long as you don't keep the money for yourself but give it away to everybody else, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor? Osipov as Robin Hood? 'Hood' is right, Robin Hood I don't think so...
There is really no waterproof programming way to protect the intellectual property of programmers ideas for long by encryption, obfuscation or whatever, but if a whole community of looters actively would start banding together to decipher commercial programs, chess programs in this case, publishing the sources for everybody, to spread as many clones as possible, under any name they can come up with, what chance do you stand as a lone commercial programmer against that?
This does not hurt computer chess? Would you justify this? Come on people!
Eelco
if we extend your example then "all those students who go to universities and later invent something and use their invention to become successful are also hulligans." ... that doesn't seem right. The reason is that there is no equivalence, neither in spirit nor intent, that can be drawn between a forum where people exchange ideas, learning from one another, hoping to invent something and the action of stealing the unique ideas that someone might actually have.
Regards,
Hristo
Between many of us here, there is a two-way interchange. We discuss ideas, we exchange ideas, we make suggestions, we might keep secrets for a tournament, but then we reveal what we are doing (in my case, this is pretty obvious since I release source).
The example I cited was missing exactly 1/2 of that. Discuss ideas, ask questions, even get pointers that take you in a good direction, but once you discover something new and different, clam up...
Not what we in academia do at all, which was my point...
in a different world it would be possible to share ideas and property and be happy. But in our world we need people to be successful in order to have you (educational system) and other people be employed -- and this often means not sharing for free, but instead making money.
It seems that you claim that so long as one has paid money for the education received then one can "clam up", but if one has received education (knowldge) without actually paying to academia then one must contribute all ideas back to the general public.
This, if that is what you are saying, is untenable and contrary to the way our society works.
Many people don't have the funds that you have to run computer labs (clusters) to test their ideas and must find resources -- some of those resources might come from the application and development of their own ideas. It is not an easy path to start a business and make a living and pay taxes (some of which go towards funding universities) when people are unscrupulous and willing to demolish your chances for success -- merely because some believe that the inventor doesn't have a right to his own invention.
I have a fundamental problem with the above expressed [yours] notion that "Unless academia is paid up you don't have a right to your own ideas".
Regards,
Hristo
Reasonable?
Taking the risk of building a business around ones own idea is completely reasonable.
What is not reasonable, IMO, is to excuse (or even justify) the blatant acts of thievery ... I just don't see any way that such behavior can be accepted as normal.
People are thankful and am sure you will be remembered for your contributions ... but that is the path you took and not all want to go there -- and those who don't should have some reasonable way of making it through life, don't you agree?bob wrote: Fortunately, during the 1970's and 1980's, it didn't work like that, or computer chess would be a decade or two behind where it is today.
Regards,
Hristo
