Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 20:05:09 01/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 1999 at 22:00:23, Fernando Villegas wrote: >On January 26, 1999 at 19:25:25, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>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. >> > >Dan, I do not need to show any document: Mr Hyatt himself has said once and >again that everybody can take his source and do with it what he wants. Please provide a citation for this. >In fact >his only complaints about the Bionic issue until now has been: >a) authors of bionic has not send to him the kind of material other people send >B9 the authors of Bionic went to a tournament and made good and abusive use of a >supertior programn againts amateurs programmers. In other words, use is restricted to a manner receiving his approval, as in any copyrighted material. Here is his copyright notice: "Crafty, copyrighted 1996 by Robert M. Hyatt, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Alabama at Birmingham. All rights reserved. No part of this program may be reproduced in any form or by any means, for any commercial (for profit/sale) reasons. This program may be freely distributed, used, and modified, so long as such use does not in any way result in the sale of all or any part of the source, the executables, or other distributed materials that are a part of this package. any changes made to this program must also be made public in the spirit that the original source is distributed." In what way do you construe this as meaning "Do anything you want to with the sources?" > >>>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. > > > > I do not follow your argument. The matter of visibility is not the core of the >discussion. Besides you are making that old logical mistake named "petitio >principe", that is, you presume the act of stealing about which we are >discussing. I do not presume anything except copyright violation which I consider to be stealing. If someone printed your material and put their name on it, would it be stealing or not? >>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. > > >Agains you make a presuposition that should be discussed. I am not defending >stealing property as would be the case if money falls, etc. The money in a truck >is obviously private or public property, property of someone. A software that is >freeware and with an author that invites people to take it and tweak it at will >cannot be compared with money falling from a truck. It can if it is illegal to misuse the code for any purpose without his consent. Did you notice the remark "All rights reserved"? That means that you can't do anything with that code without his consent, except as directly specified. The source of Bionic Impact is clearly *NOT* made publicly available, so it is in *CLEAR VIOLATION* of the copyright notice. > >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 > > >Again the same mistake. You presume an act of stealing, people running with the >booty, etc. The issue is not between openly published or not. Any "publication" >is public by definition; the point is that some publication belongs to the >author, that ask some protections for his work; other publications are free and >cannot ask anything. This is the case of Crafty. Please demonstrate how this is the case. So far, you have made the claim but provided no evidence whatsoever that your claim has truth to it. Perhaps it is simply the case that your recollection is fuzzy. > >>"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? > > >Happy or not, If I said "this poetry can be used by any guy, even changed trying >to produce better verses", then I cannot say nothing. What if you said, "You have to give me credit for the original" and the new authors failed to do that. Or you said, "You have to send me a copy of your new poetry" and the new authors failed to do that. If you fail to live up to the terms of the agreement, then there is no agreement and you are in full violation. > > >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 > > >All this about wrritting software is not under discussion. I agree with you. But >in this specific case, this specific piece of programming is not unvder >protection as much his opwn author invites people to do good use of it. Restricted good use of it. >Remember: Bob has not blamed anyone because taking Creaftuy for creating Bionic, >BUT only some procedures that seems to be ugly, unfair, etc in a tourmanent. >>Bionic > > > >>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] > > >Anyway, a pleasure to debate with you. As always, the same. From planet Tralfemador.
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.