Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 14:51:58 08/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 25, 2004 at 17:41:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >I subscribe to a normal "legal philosophy" from the US. For a "crime" to be >committed, a couple of things are needed. > >(1) Intent. You need to knowingly break the law. IE if you walk into a store, >see a dollar bill laying on the floor, and you pick it up without thinking, you >_could_ be accused of theft of property. But there was no intent since the >floor is not a normal place for someone to leave "property" that is valuable. >No crime was committed. > >I believe this case fits that scenario. > >(2) Victim. Someone has to be victimized, directly or indirectly. He's not >tried to enter any ACM chess events which would victimize participants. He has >not publicly claimed that his code was 100% original that I have seen, so I am >not a victim. > >This is an unfortunate event, but one that doesn't leave me nearly as aggravated >as some of the other more famous cases, like bionic, le petite, voyager, et. al. > They definitely claimed the code to be original when it was not. There _is_ a victim that you have no right to disregard. It's the copyright hint you gave yourself in your source. Nobody say that you should run amok here and kill Eugenio, but stay at least to your own source where you requests that people must ask your permission. You have no right to suddenly say that if someone not asked that this wasn't a real problem for you.
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.