BB+ on the matter

[mhull]

Yes. I have my own favorite group since I was a kid and I have received far more enjoyment and pleasure from listening to their music than I ever payed the recording companies.

Giving it to you for less than they thought it was worth would have been a contribution. Transactions where both parties feel they made out like bandits are not contributions in the common usage of the word.

[rodolfoleoni]

...

(*cough* Mona Lisa -- sorry Leonardo --> insert "The Last Judgment" here .)

Vas is the author of Houd *cough cough* I meant *cough* author of Rybka. Yes, he made a contribution in the measure of happy users for what they got paying for it, and he made a contribution to Chess Computer activity, in the measure of lots of programmers trying to improve their engines. Not to compare wirth Michelangelo or Leonardo, I guess...

With the viewpoint of improving engines, the Ipp* and derivates open source softwares gave a better contribution, by revealing how they work. But I cannot really understand if they had right to do what they did. Furthermore, I can't know what they really did!!

[Dann Corbit]

I am not aware of any commercial chess engine for which the source code is publicly available.

So Vas is not at all different from Johan de Koning or Amir Ban or Stefan Meyer-Kahlen or ...

Of course. And they are not giving you a contribution when you pay for their products. You are giving them a contribution.

Michaelangelo got payed for the statue of David and the (*cough* Mona Lisa -- sorry Leonardo --> insert "The Last Judgment" here .)
Other statues and famous ceilings also brought him compensation which was judged as fair at the time.

Does this mean that Michaelangelo made no contribution to society?

The same goes for GPL code. A person can get paid for coding open source work. And his code is made available for all to learn from and benefit, even though he is paid. That's a contribution. Secrets aren't contributions.

I absolutely agree that the secret itself is not a contribution. But if there is a by-product of the secret that results in good for me then there is a contribution.

It is not the secret that was the contribution, but the by product of the secret.

Let's get back to artwork. If the author is compensated, then where is the contribution?

The contribution is the inspiration that I receive from enjoying his work (quite possibly paying for it -- for instance I recently took my wife to see Andew Wyath's work). In a similar vein, when I see the output of some titanic chess struggle between Rybka and Stockfish, or see some special chess position solved by Rybka, I receive enjoyment from that. This enjoyment is my compensation.

I'm pretty sure that you realize the other side of the argument. I think at this point you are just having fun with it.

[Graham Banks]

Yes. I have my own favorite group since I was a kid and I have received far more enjoyment and pleasure from listening to their music than I ever payed the recording companies.

Giving it to you for less than they thought it was worth would have been a contribution. Transactions where both parties feel they made out like bandits are not contributions in the common usage of the word.

You're looking at contributions from a purely monetary point of view. That is only one way of looking at it.

[Don]

Which is always the case - otherwise only a fool would pay. If I hire a grandmaster to analyze my games it's because I am getting something of value for something of less value. The Grandmaster feels exactly the same from his point of view, he thinks he is getting more back that he is putting in, otherwise he would be wasting his time.

But that's backwards. If you feel that you took someone to the cleaners in a transaction, you are calling that a contribution, which is nonsensical.

No, you put a selfish twist on this with your constant negativity. Any fair transaction is mutually beneficial arrangement (whether it's monetary or not is completely irrelevant.) Both sides feel good in my Grandmaster analogy because I feel that I am making a contribution to the Grandmaster and giving him due honor and respect for his hard won expertise, but I also get to benefit from it too. And he is happy to be able to earn a living doing what he loves and gladly accepts my money and is motivated to give me his very best.

This same transaction structure works with Stockfish and the computer chess community. They do something they love to do, so this is not a big sacrifice for them - it's a hobby they enjoy. We obviously benefit from their ideas and the use of Stockfish. We pay them back with praise and recognition and they feel pride and accomplishment. Everybody wins.

The Rybka "transaction" has all these same elements too - it's just that Vas wants some of his compensation to be in the form of money so that he can specialize in doing this for a living instead of having to do something else. His contribution is less because he does not share his source code. It seems everyone views him as a bastard because he does not share his source code, which is grossly unfair. If he had never developed Rybka, he would have no source code but would be a good guy? Where is the justice in the view that I must work really hard to develop something that I must then give away or be considered evil? Please send me as much money as you have, I know you worked hard for it but you should share it we me. I cannot believe you are holding this back from me. PM me and I will give you my address so that you can mail it to me.

IOW, you have to assume that Vas feels his work is worth a lot more that what he's selling it for. So he either feels ripped off or beneficent. Objectively speaking, you can't make that call, and maybe he can't either. Either way, if money is involved, but art is concealed, it's not a contribution to the art, since the art remains secret.

[Graham Banks]

I'm pretty sure that you realize the other side of the argument. I think at this point you are just having fun with it.

That comment directed at Matt sums it up from what I can see too.

[Dann Corbit]

...

(*cough* Mona Lisa -- sorry Leonardo --> insert "The Last Judgment" here .)

Vas is the author of Houd *cough cough* I meant *cough* author of Rybka. Yes, he made a contribution in the measure of happy users for what they got paying for it, and he made a contribution to Chess Computer activity, in the measure of lots of programmers trying to improve their engines. Not to compare wirth Michelangelo or Leonardo, I guess...

Lest we forget, also, Rybka 1.0 (and a few other betas) were free to enjoy.
Also, he gives away Rybka 2.3.2x (I forget which x) as well as WinFinder.

With the viewpoint of improving engines, the Ipp* and derivates open source softwares gave a better contribution, by revealing how they work. But I cannot really understand if they had right to do what they did. Furthermore, I can't know what they really did!!

Greater or lesser contribution, legal or illegal -- these things are hard to measure or hard to know for sure.
I greatly admire Dr. Hyatt for sharing his chess knowlege for decades. But I also admire Amir Ban, who never did show us the guts of his program.

As for knowing what they really did, anyone can know it. But if you don't know how to program you will first have to learn that. After learning that, you will have to understand how a chess engine works and then you will have to study the code. Each of these is a big cost. It reminds me of Van Cliburn.
Reportedly, a woman once said to him:
Woman: I would give anything to be able to play like you!
Van Cliburn: No you wouldn't.
Woman:I certainly would!
Van Cliburn: No you wouldn't.
Woman (now indignant):I most certainly would!
Van Cliburn: No you wouldn't. You would not spend your entire lifetime learning how to play and then 4 hours per day every day of your life in rigourous practice or you would have done it already.

[mhull]

Where is the justice in the view that I must work really hard to develop something that I must then give away or be considered evil?

There wouldn't be any justice in such a view. Not contributing isn't by definition evil. Making a profit isn't by definition evil either (unless you're a communist). Keeping your code secret isn't evil either. But just because they're not evil doesn't make them contributions.

But it seems you must pin the "you're calling Vas evil" on me because you can't make any headway against the English dictionary.

[mhull]

George Lucas figures out clever ways to make fun movies. He does not teach the things he learns to other theatre companies. Did his movies make no contribution to society?

Check out the special features section of your DVDs. All is revealed there. They can't help themselves. In fact, they're more proud of their process than the end product, which is usually a turkey.

[rodolfoleoni]

.......
As for knowing what they really did, anyone can know it. But if you don't know how to program you will first have to learn that. After learning that, you will have to understand how a chess engine works and then you will have to study the code. Each of these is a big cost.

.........

I mean, I can guess what they did. But I cannot know it for sure. It's all without a proof, and it'll remain that way until an Authority will be elected.

I once built an engine. Well, not really an engine, as it only was able to play random legal moves. Very funny to see mate in 1 ignored... I have an idea about compiling a source, and I guess decompiling would return source back. I'm just not sure if some reverse engineering was done.

And I'm not sure about what should be considered legal or illegal, ethical or not. Decompiline and copying parts of the code is of course unethical. Did they do so? Is decompiling and using the reverse source for better understanding how the program works illegal? Unethical? And if he uses that knowledge for building a new, original software? Is it illegal? Unethical?

Clear rules are needed.