Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 18:30:26 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2003 at 20:03:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On November 27, 2003 at 18:12:48, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>On November 27, 2003 at 18:04:56, Terry McCracken wrote: >> >>>On November 27, 2003 at 17:55:19, Bob Durrett wrote: >>> >>>>On November 27, 2003 at 17:42:58, margolies,marc wrote: >>>> >>>>>These are not charges based upon LIST's <<performance>> in a direct >>>>>way--Although all of LIST's defenders offer counter-proof regarding different >>>>>performance characteristics between Crafty and LIST. >>>>>The charge is PLAGIARISM-- lifting of (some)code. The Programmer in question has >>>>>not responded to the commitee's request for proof with a defense (according to >>>>>Levy's Report--I have no direct knowledge) therefore the Commitee had to act to >>>>>protect the legitimacy of the Tournament. Also the commitee's action were a >>>>>response to a complaint by an (unnamed) tournament participant who has standing >>>>>to do so. >>>> >>>>The "committee" has no legal authority. Plagiarism is a violation of law, at >>>>least in some Countries. The individual suffering damages from plagiarism can >>>>seek and obtain compensation in a duly constituted Civil Court of Law. The >>>>"committee" is NOT a Court of Law. They have no business trying to pretend >>>>otherwise. They run risks by their own actions. They have no authority to >>>>judge and punish someone for a law violation and they have no authority to >>>>create their own laws either. In other words, this "committee" has put itself >>>>out on a very fragile limb. Let's just hope that the programmer has a very good >>>>sense of humor. >>>> >>>>Bob D. >>> >>>Sorry Bob, but you don't know what you're talking about. The ICGA does have the >>>legal authority to expel List, if the author doesn't meet his or her >>>obligations. >>> >>>They _are_ entitled to view the source code, and the participants know this. >>> >>>Since the author of List didn't return their messages by the deadline, the ICGA >>>must enforce the rules, no exceptions. >>> >>>Terry >> >>Well, there's always two sides to every coin. If I am wrong it wouldn't be the >>first time! : ) >> >>I really hate it when organizers try to impose unreasonable rules. It is one of >>my hangups. Sorry to burden every one else with my pet peeves. : ( >> >>Bob D. > > >The rule has always been present. Enforcing it has always been problematic. IE >a commercial entrant would necessarily be hesitant to provide source to _anyone_ >for obvious reasons. > >I've had this kind of discussion in the past, ie about trying to prevent >cheating at CC events. There is little point in having a rule that can not >possibly be enforced. (cheating is a good case because I believe that if >someone wants to cheat bad enough, there is no way to prevent it without >incurring incredible cost.) > >How to enforce the source code stuff is messy. Very messy. Yes, that makes sense to me. The fact may be that the List programmer may have had high hopes of eventually "going commercial" and making a lot of money from his chess-playing program some day. If so, he would be just as reluctant today to release his source code as would be the programmers/owners of the current top financially rewarding commercial chess programs. In a word, he would consider his source code to be "proprietary." He might also worry that letting somebody see his source code would preclude him from later obtaining copyrights to the software. He would not wish to put his product into the "public domain" and would fear that letting "the committee" see the code would do just that. I think that any chess engine programmer with aspirations of "going commercial" would be unwilling to let ***anybody*** see their source code. Perhaps they would be dumb to do so. Only in a University environment, where the University, a public institution, owns the copyrights and the code developed using public funds would publishing the code make sense. My understanding is that the University would never allow you to "go commercial" with Crafty, nor was that ever your intention, and so releasing the code was/is the right thing to do. Doing so promotes Computer Science education. How many of the remaining participants would "turn their source code over to the committee" if push came to shove? I suspect the answer is "none of them." Bob D.
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.