Author: José Carlos
Date: 16:58:21 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. Hi Bob, I'd don't quite understand your position. I'd like to know your opinion about these questions, to help me clarify: -shoud current version of ElChinito be allowed to participate in computer chess events without indicating it derives from Crafty? -should Castillo and Tang be penalized somehow for previous participations? -is the copywright in Quisinky's page legal? -is hidding the truth acceptable when not explicity saying lies? -what would you think if other 100 engines would be proven to be in the same situation of ElChinito? -should ElChinito change its name now to explicity indicate it derives from Crafty? -should current released versions of ElChinito be released again with source code included? José C.
This page took 0.01 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.