Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:15:30 10/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2002 at 12:09:59, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On October 24, 2002 at 11:13:37, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>I disagree. If you get money for your program, you are commercial. Whether >you sold one or one million. If you get no money from your program, you are >>>amateur. >>Crafty has been on all sorts of CDs. I've never gotten one cent for it. No >>way it could be considered "commercial". >> >>Commercial -> selling > >This is all fine and dandy, but you are ignoring reality here. > >The problem is that the ICCA charges a big entry fee for their events >for professionals. I'll leave in the middle if it's reasonable or not; >I'm sure Vincent will love to tell you some things about that. > >If you follow your definition (which is excellent and which I'd agree >to if it were not for the current situation), then you will not be able >to organize an ICCA event, because so many programmers will end up >having to pay the large entry fee even though they make none or almost >no money from their programs. I've _never_ supported the entry fee idea. Much less the idea that commercial entries should pay more than amateurs. So that is moot to me. But if you sell a single copy, that is "commercial" by any definition. IE the definition of an amateur sports participant is one that has received _no_ money to play that particular sport... > >Of the first 10 finishers in the 2002 WCCC, the numbers 6 to 10 would >be gone. > >I don't think that is reasonable. > >-- >GCP That is a different issue entirely to defining the term "commercial programmer"...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.