Author: Fernando Villegas
Date: 18:33:06 02/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 1999 at 14:06:15, Dann Corbit wrote:
>When you take source code of a project under development, it is like stealing
>the manuscript of a play while it is being written. No more nor less noble than
>stealing a finished product.
>
>There are millions of lines of public domain software available, including a few
>chess programs. I have personally donated public domain software that I have
>written. In such a case, you are free to do absolutely anything with it. But
>unless an author rescinds his rights, the software copyright belongs to him.
>
>You are considering an ethical ground, and indeed, ethical standards are in a
>sense higher even than legal standards if they are just. However, if we are
>breaking the law for no other reason than to benefit ourselves, then there is no
>possible justification for such glory seeking, greedy conduct.
Of course not, but maybe is the price to pay for the existence and labour of
those that really take something to deliver something better after a while.
It is a shame
>and not an advancement. If my government gave me a gun and said "You positively
>must shoot Fernando upon pain of death." I would have to disobey. There is a
>higher standard of "Love {even} your enemy and do good {even} to those
>persecuting you." that I will obey over the legal call. If I should love even
>my enemy, how could I ever do harm against my friend? But there is no such
>ethical standard at stake here.
>
>There is an underlying point which you may be trying to express, and which I
>agree with fully. You cannot copyright nor patent mathematics. That is a legal
>standard that the entire world recognizes. So the *principles* in Dr. Hyatt's
>software are free game. You can learn about anything he does and do the same
>thing yourself. You just can't do a simple cut and paste of his work. You have
>to learn and understand it first and make your own implementation.
>
Why you think that the guys that cut and paste some part of Crafty source does
not understand what the source is? Why you imply they have not understood? Every
mathematic, in his wortk, cut and paste the entire history of maths in order to
show his own discovery: he must use let us sat additions, substractions, maybe
calculus, any kind of things already invented by another guys. And they are not
using jst principles, but the entire algorythm
>Perhaps this is what you are alluding to -- that software should be free.
>Indeed, the ideas in software are free (unless patented -- but that is not at
>issue here).
Not necesarily so: many commercial products are just that, a tool for doing
something and were invented for that, only for that and deserves to receive a
payment. They do not pretend top be a link in the development of nothing but the
financial state of his author. Is not the case of Bob.
>
>Aside: Personally, I don't care for software patents. I think they are akin to
>patenting math. However, in case of a software patent, I will obey the law
>because my interpretation has no superiority over the legal one.
As usual, a pleasure.
From Titanic in the deep blue
fernando
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.