Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 18:36:58 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 27, 2003 at 21:30:26, Bob Durrett wrote: >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. How would you know? If you have a POV, then write the ICGA.
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.