Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Bionic Vs Crafty Debate: some data required

Author: Dann Corbit

Date: 16:25:25 01/26/99

Go up one level in this thread


On January 26, 1999 at 18:50:17, Fernando Villegas wrote:
[snip]
>Dan:
>Your example is awfully bad, I am afraid to say. An article is protected by an
>author right and/or the right of the publishing house. So, of course, you cannot
>take it so freely.
And software is also covered by international copyright law.  Dr. Hyatt's source
code has a copyright notice in main.c, however, under U.S. law, no notice of
this kind is required.

>But if I write something and not only I do not protect it BUT
>also I say to all of you that it is "freeware" article, then you can do exactly
>what you say. And of course is not stealing. It is some abuse of your part, an
>ugly act, but not stealing.
Please demonstrate the document where Dr. Hyatt says that you can do whatever
you want to with his code.  I do not believe that it exists.  Crafty.doc from
his ftp site contains no such language.

>Besides, a code source is a work of science or tech, and so, by definition, its
>purpose is to be used by other people as a tool, a ground for new developments,
>etc. It is in its nature to be changed, eventually. But is not the case of an
>article, a finished and final piece of literature -bad literature, if you want-,
>where not use is possible except reading it and get some fun or information from
>it.  Then, to change an article or to change a source code are absolutely
>different ontological acts if yopu do not mind.
Well, all I can say is that you are completely and utterly incorrect.
Just because something is visible does not mean you can steal it.  Your magazine
articles are visible for anyone to read, why do you imagine that it would be
different.  Crafty probably represents *decades* of work.  Dr. Hyatt is kind
enough to show us the results of his tremendous efforts.  And for this he should
be rewarded with stealing the code and stamping our name on it?  Absolutely
absurd.

You have one point, between the lines, which I agree with.  Mathematics and
science belong to everyone.  However, even at this point stupid legal crapola
rears its ugly head.  For instance, you can *patent* an algorithm.  I think such
a thing is absurd -- but there you have it.  At any rate, unless the
*algorithms* are patented, you can use them.  But to cut and paste is still
stealing.  A copyright violation.  However, you can read and understand them and
code your own without any legal penalty.

Your argument seems to be the "money falls off a truck -- then it is free"
variety.  It still belongs to somebody.  Just because it is easy to grab it and
run away and very hard to catch you afterward does not make it OK.  Sure, all
his work is openly published.  That does not make it fair game any more than if
you published a book of poetry, that would become fair game.  Your insistence is
"it's not the same."  My insistense is that it *is* the same.  Suppose that you
worked for ten years on a book of poetry, and someone took all of your poems,
changed the titles and published them under his name.  Would that make you
happy?  Sure, all you have to do is walk down to the library to get that book
and anybody with a copy machine and a scanner can reproduce it in a couple of
hours.  But they are taking something away from you.  Why do you imagine that it
should be any different with software?  Writing software is every bit as much a
creative act as writing poetry (I do both).  In fact, I will say that Crafty's
code is not only efficient, it is beautiful.  I have seen a lot of code that is
not nice to look at, but Dr. Hyatt's code is a thing of joy.

Is Arasan also up for grabs?  How about The Crazy Bishop?  Can I take the code
from these, rename the executable and enter a tournament?  In my view, such an
action would be criminal.  Theft, and cowardice combined in an ugly way.
"Easily obtainable" and "my property" are not synonyms nor should they be.

Somehow, we manage to disagree at times.  I do respect your opinions and ability
as a writer, but this time I am one hundred percent polarized.

OTOH, I do not want to imply that the B.I. folks did any sort of stealing.  I
really have no idea how that whole pot of worms got stirred, and am not anxious
to take a bite either, for that matter.
[snip]



This page took 0.01 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.