Author: Uri Blass
Date: 17:02:53 12/06/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 06, 2005 at 17:43:41, Zheng Zhixian wrote: >On December 06, 2005 at 16:49:54, Chessfun wrote: > >>On December 06, 2005 at 16:45:57, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On December 06, 2005 at 16:25:20, Zheng Zhixian wrote: >>> >>>>On December 06, 2005 at 15:42:02, mike schoonover wrote: >>>> >>>>>hi frank, >>>>>check your mail >>>>>regards >>>>>mike >>>> >>>>From readme >>>> >>>>"We ask that the beta releases not be circulated except in cases where special >>>>permission was given, as it was for example to all of the members of the CEGT >>>>test team. Those interested in becoming beta testers are asked to please contact >>>>us directly to get a copy." >>>> >>>>My opinion is the 'special permission' to circulate was withdrawn after WBEC 24 >>>>hour limit was up. So those sending the file to others now without explict >>>>permission may be doing so against the wishes of the author. >>>> >>>>Maybe Vasik could comment on this? >>> >>>I do not think that the author is stupid not to understand the result of his >>>actions. > >Well arguably, if an author decides to release his source code under GPL, he >should be smart enough to realise that the result of his action is perhaps >seeing people illegally clone his engine without crediting the author. But does >that make the action itself legal? No but this is a different case. There is no law against giving beta versions when the testers did not promise nothing. > > >>>In case that he gives it not only to selected team of beta testers then the >>>meaning is that evertbody who asks to get it is going to get it because >>>everybody has a friend of friend of friend who downloaded it. > >Not sure what you mean Uri. If I buy Shredder 10, does that mean the author >expects me to give it to a friend of a friend of a friend? No This is different. > >My interpretition was that whoever had the beta could not circulate it except if >it was given to someone in the group whom there was special permission given. If you give it to a small group it make sense but this was not the case. An >example of this would be the special permission the CEGT group of testers. This is a different case and I think that the CEGT team answer to definition of small group but you cannot truse a big group of hundreds of people not to send it to other people. > >The second special permission given was to people who knew about WBEC hosting of >the file during the 24 hours it was on. > >In all other cases, you cannot circulate. > >My impression was that the 24 hour offer was aimed at targetting a group solely >defined as 'hard core computer chess fans' and rather than handle it on a case >by case base (300 emails addresses), the way he did that was to define the term >as somone who reads CCC at least once in 24 hours. It is not only these people and even people who do not read CCC and heard about it from friends who read CCC could download it. > >So in effect just like the special permissions given to all CEGT tesers, there >was a special permission given to anyone who knew about it (most from CCC, some >from friends) and downloaded it within those 24 hours. I am not sure if most are from CCC and it is possible that most are friends of people who post in CCC or friends of friends. > >In all other events, the readme says that if anyone else wants to test the >engine, he should contact Vasik directly. People who downloaded the program did not agree to the readme before downloading it and I guess that the readme is an old file that was relevant to the testers who asked to test it but not for everyone. > >A very generous offer, since as you point out in earlier threads this means a >lot of other people who wouldn't usually be definied as hard core cc people >would know about it through friends. And some unlucky ones would miss out. > > >>>People who downloaded it did not have to agree to conditions not to send it to >>>other people before downloading it so I see nothing illegal with it. > >That's a different point, and you may be right, I don't know. After all Vasik >seems eager to let the chess world know about his engine. > > >>Nothing illegal maybe but look at these messages especially these titles IMO >>it's nothing more than Spam. How many over the coming days, weeks must we see? > >It seems kind of strange if such an action wasn't illegal. I see nothing strange. People cannot forbid me to send files to other people unless I promised not to do it. I agree with Sarah that posting here asking for the beta version of Rykba is spam. I also agree that sending commercial Rybka by email to a friend is illegal but it is possible that the author will even earn from this illegal thing. The point is that even people who do this illegal thing not always have a principle never to pay for software but they only do not like the prices. If option a is to have no copy protection and 10 people pay 1/10 of the price and option b is to have copy protection and the same 10 people do not buy it and do not have it then it is clear that option a is better for the author. Uri
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.