Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 05:44:24 01/28/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 1999 at 00:45:45, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 27, 1999 at 11:47:59, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>On January 27, 1999 at 10:24:49, KarinsDad wrote: >> >>>On January 27, 1999 at 08:46:51, Fernando Villegas wrote: >>> >>>>Hi both: >>>>Well, you ask me a document or fact of any kind about Bob willingness, about his >>>>attitude respect Crafty. Simple: just take a look at the posts he has done about >>>>this issue. Sorry, I am not going to do the search for you, as maybe I should: >>>>no time for that. But If you can put faith in my memory and good will, what Bob >>>>has said is that the very nature of his Crafty proyect is to live it open to use >>>>and be changed or altered from any person interested and he only ask to receive >>>>a feedback about how good or bad the changes were. And if my meorya does not >>>>fail, what bothers Bob -and me- is the fact that clones of Crafty can be used >>>>and compete. I agree with him in that in the degree the sons of Crafty are no >>>>more than clones. Bionic is still a case to examine. We have now a downloadable >>>>Bionic so we can see that for ourselves. >>> >>>You don't have squat without source code. Unless the tests come back move for >>>move identical (which they will not), you have nothing. If you run all of the >>>tests out to about 9 million nodes total per move or so (as per Crafty and >>>Bionic approximate tournament numbers, whatever those might be) and you run half >>>a dozen other programs (Fritz, Junior, etc.) as well to that level, and the >>>Bionic results are nearly identical to Crafty, but the others are not, then you >>>have at least a starting point. You would have still proven nothing, but you can >>>at least demostrate that between those results, the fact that Bionic was based >>>on Crafty, and since it made near identical moves at tournament times, then it >>>had an unfair advantage. Otherwise, you have squat. >>> >>>>Of course I understand what All rights reserved means. Nevertheless, "reserved" >>>>has not an absolute and unique meaning. >>> >>>In the US, copywrite means copywrite. It does not even have to be in the source. >> >> >> >>Copywrite are not automatic devices. There are other things in this world >>besides law codes. They, copywrite rights, becomes operative if you begin a >>civil action to do so. I can put a trademark to every one of my articles, just >>in case, BUT then I can tell people to make use of my articles and that, my word >>of permission, has a value at least equal to the previous right. I think that >>word of permission was spoken by Bob. >> >> > >this I don't follow. The specific copyright notice says "any changes to the >source must remain public with the original source". That wasn't done. Also >"copyright" means 'copyright'... that the material cannot be copied without >express permission of the author, and then must follow the guidelines he lays >down. > I thought both things -to ask permission, to give the changed source code- were done OR were to be done at short notice, as Bionic people said they would do. So I was discussing about the general issue about the legality and morality of using or not Crafty with permssions dued asked and received and then being part of another program and even use it in a tournament. If those prerequisites were not accomplished, then I am with you 100%. fernando. >Legally the copyright notice is not needed. And 'trademark' is something >totally different. You have to submit your 'thing', pay a fee, pay the >trademark office to research the trademark to be sure it is original, and >then it is yours. Ditto for patents which is the strict way to protect >algorithms. But anything 'written' by someone is automatically copyrighted. >And to take something written by someone else verbatim requires permission to >avoid copyright violation. In main.c I give specific permissions but also >specific limitations and requirements that have to be met. > >In this case, they weren't quite satisified, unfortunately. > > >> >>>It is there by default. End of story. Anything else that you try to say to twist >>>the words are just semantics. >>> >>>> What you reserve depoends of what you >>>>want to reserve. Bill gates reserves something very different for Windows that >>>>what Bob reserves for himself. Bob has said: do what you want but send me the >>>>feedbakc, recognizee my autorship in the original product, etc. >>> >>>If you do not acknowledge Robert's rights as author and try to mininmize the >>>meaning of those rights by indicating that some other people have different >>>rights in their code then others, then you are missing the point. Accessability >>>and previously granted permissions DO NOT CHANGE THE RIGHTS. Period. >> >> >>I am not trying to minimize nothing. Take a look at Bob criteria about his own >>right on this issue. >> >> >> >> >>>KarinsDad >>> >>>PS. I think I will post some of Fernando's articles here tomorrow (with just a >>>few minor changes) since copywrite doesn't mean anything to him. He won't mind. >>>Be good Fernando :) >>> >> >> >>Hey Karinsdad, if you do that you would do me a favour as much I have a lot to >>learn about really good english sintaxis et al. Please do. You count wih my >>blesings. >>Hasta la vista. >>Fernando >> >> >>>> The authors os >>>>Bionic has complied with art laest one of those petitions. maybe they are >>>>failing in sending back to Bob the entire source code of Bionic. >>>>Conclusion: In my view the sin of bionic people is something to be examined in >>>>facts and not something to be stablished from now on, a priori, on legal or >>>>moral terms. We must see the bowells of Bionic to see how much they really >>>>putted new into it. Even some people believes the version that played in the >>>>first half of the tournament was just a Crafty. >>>>Greetings for all of you. >>>>Fernando writting now from Spaceship Babylon
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.