Author: David Dahlem
Date: 14:56:18 08/25/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 25, 2004 at 17:51:58, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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. What about all the users who spent lots of time using and testing an engine they thought was original? :-) Regards Dave 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.