Author: Dan Homan
Date: 17:23:48 02/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 1999 at 18:07:05, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: >On February 16, 1999 at 17:31:56, Dan Homan wrote: > >>Good point. My language condemning the general behavior of copying >>another's work (in large part, at least) and passing it off as one's >>own was perhaps too strong and not clearly separated from exploring the >>facts of the individual cases. >> >>Anger and frusteration about the general practice and the investigation >>of individual cases should be clearly separated. It is unfair to do >>otherwise. I apologize. >> >> - Dan > >Thank you. You needn't have apologised. Perhaps I owe an apology for being to >persistent here. After all, we are still talking about a copy of an >experimental program that played only on the servers and that has not yet been >published anywhere (either as shareware or freeware or a commercial product). >This copy will eventually have been dissected and commented on, after which some >sort of verdict will have been pronounced. Who will be the judge and what could >the author of the experimental program be possibly accused of? Experimenting >with and testing an experimental program that has not been commercially >exploited (allowed for all I know)? Utilising a free source for the sake of >experimentation (allowed for all I know)? Code-sharing while tinkering with the >free source (allowed as well)? Not translating all comments from English into >German while experimenting (hmm, we are not going to discuss this, are we?)? >Taking part in a World Champs as a clone (charge dropped, no evidence)? Taking >part in the Dutch Open, or the German Open in Paderborn (charges dropped, no >evidence)? What, Dan? What is actually at stake? An interdiction that one >cannot experiment as much as one wishes to with a free source, even without >making the program commercial, or without entering it in official competitions? >Punishment for thinking that it is sufficiently different from Crafty to be >running it on the servers? > >All these are issues that should be addressed and discussed. Of course, there >are moral isssues here too. That is why the whole matter is so complicated and >the situation a mess. I wish I was somewhere else right now. Say, playing >Exchess on my computer and drinking ice-cold tea. But, as it is now, I have to >stand up and fight for rationality and clarity. > >Regards, >Djordje I've given this some thought and, from my point of view, honesty is a major issue. If I know that my program is competing against a modified crafty, I will know how to interpret the results. If I think the program is the work of someone new to the field, I am likely to feel somewhat inadequate :) I think that copying and modifying crafty for expermential purposes, either private or on the servers is completely ok, as long as it is clear exactly what is being done. Some of these changes might be quite creative and unique... and the people responsible should get the credit for their ideas, but I don't like the idea of someone claiming complete credit for the program by not being up-front about its origins. Reputation is a real issue, and when program results (either tournaments, ICS results, or any other kind of tests or matches) are touted in public forums, it should be clear which programs are original and which are extensions or modifications of other programs. It is one thing to say that an new amateur program regularly edges out crafty (this is a very exciting result), but quite another to say that clever modifications to crafty's search and eval increases its strength (also exciting, but with in a much different way). An author who puts forth a modified crafty and doesn't make the program's origins clear takes some of Bob's reputation as his own. In the case of tournaments, this damage extends to other amateur authors who must compete multiple times with the very strong and sure crafty. An interesting question is when extensive modifications lead to a largely original program that can be separated from its parent. I don't know how to answer this... None of the considerations above are legal.... they are moral and, as such, rather fuzzy. A reasonable reading of Crafty's user agreement makes it clear that any changes to the source code should be made available to interested parties. One possible legal violation is if these authors refuse to make their changes publicly available. Another is if they submit their program to a tournament that requires original author participation. - Dan
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.