Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:59:59 08/09/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 08, 2002 at 12:42:46, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >On August 08, 2002 at 09:37:03, José Carlos wrote: > >>On August 07, 2002 at 18:33:25, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On August 07, 2002 at 16:48:38, Carlos Pesce wrote: >>> >>>>Ive never replayed Uri Blass posts but..its enough. >>>>Its a lie that the programmer that give to US his engine for free is because he >>>>know that its weak..please, Mr. Blass, speak for yourself, not for all the >>>>programmers. >>> >>>I did not speak for all the programmers. >>> >>> The GNU project, Linux (that its much better OS that MS), show to >>>>us that theres a "philosophie" besides them: the knowledge must be for all the >>>>human race. For you all is money, all can be selled, all can be bought. >>> >>>I did not say it. >>>I do not think that people are going to pay for movei today. >>> >>>I did not say that all is money. >>>If programmers do not want to make money by their program they can sell it and >>>give the money to poor people. >>> >>>I think that poor people need the money more than users of chess programs and >>>users of chess programs can pay for them so I do not see the loss of knowledge >>>for the human race(espacially when the source code is not free). >> >> Easy solution. Each time you download a free program send some money to poor >>people. That will prevent the programmer to keep the money, and poor people will >>be helped. > >Yes, why the programmer should have the burden of keeping track of the money and >accounting? The burden should be on the user. >I think that we could give a name to this: "charityware". > >On the other hand, I wonder how many people downloaded Gaviota. I can estimate >how much money I contribute it indirectly to charity and deduct that from taxes >:-) > >Miguel > > >> Then, try to convince other people to do the same as you. >> As you see, free programs and helping poor people are not incompatible. And surely there is room for everything. I like to see professional chess programmers succeed. In particular: Amir Ban, John Merlino, Ed Schroder and Christophe Theron are very, very nice people (have not interfaced much with any of the others, really). Why shouldn't they make money at something they enjoy doing? In the meantime, we are all enriched by the excellent chess tools they provide. Then we have free engines without source code. Some of them play spectacular chess. We can have contests and play them online and all sorts of wonderful things. Probably, there are some people who simply would not get to participate without these. When I lived in Turkey (for instance) our maid was paid one dollar per day, and it was difficult to get her to take even a 25 cent tip. In many places even $50 would be a lot of money to spend on a chess program. Then we have free engines that come with source code. What wonderful learning tools, full of hours of exploration and enjoyment. In addition, we have professional quality papers published at universities, in the JICCA, in the ACM, etc. and also excellent web sites for teaching like those of Bruce and Colin. Let's face it. What we have here is an embarassment of riches.
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.