OpenChess

It would be nice to hear thought process of the Illegal/Ethical voter. Clearly, this is either a Vas hater, loves Science, or both.

John Blake wrote:

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

oudheusa wrote:The only paradox is that the authors must believe it is illegal. Otherwise they wouldn't remain anonymous.

There are myriad reasons other than illegality which lead one to be pseudonymous or anonymous on the internet. One simply cannot assume that the one has anything to do with the other. It reminds me of the cryptography debates: "why would you use cryptography unless you have something to hide?"

http://people.dsv.su.se/~jpalme/society/anonymity.html
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes ... ymity.html

Yes, this 'You have something to hide' has always been used when all else fails, the cryptography fiasco raged for years, especially with PGP.

The same reasoning often used by those that advocate a police state, is in play here.

If an honest citizen has nothing to hide surely he will not mind having his automobile searched at a traffic stop. Or his house and bank account, if he has nothing to hide. Anyone that would object to these kind of searches must have something to hide.

Let me pose a question:

Why does a comic book super hero wear a mask?

You know, like say, Zorro. Could it be that when the forces of evil get so strong, anonymity may be used in a benevolent cause.

Kevin Frayer wrote: Why does a comic book super hero wear a mask?

Because it is a Comic book?

Has there ever been a real 'hero' with a mask or just villains?

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Kevin Frayer wrote: Why does a comic book super hero wear a mask?

Because it is a Comic book?

Has there ever been a real 'hero' with a mask or just villains?

Yes!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat

Just now I notice your "Addamsian latin" citation.
ROFL. It's even worse than Macaronic latin

Kevin Frayer wrote:

Harvey Williamson wrote:

Kevin Frayer wrote: Why does a comic book super hero wear a mask?

Because it is a Comic book?

Has there ever been a real 'hero' with a mask or just villains?

Yes!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Throat

Playchess also has its own Superhero

kingliveson wrote:It would be nice to hear thought process of the Illegal/Ethical voter.

What's so strange about it? Illegal/Ethical is a perfectly valid pair. Using the classic example once again, hiding Jews from Nazis is the ethical thing to do, and you SHOULD do it, even if you are breaking the law.

I'm no expert and I don't know in what cases/conditions reverse engineering of software might be a copyright infringement. But that voter must have believed it was illegal.

He also presumably believes that software should be free, and that having knowledge of those algorithms openly available to the chess programming community is a valuable thing that tips the ethical scales.

edit: P.S. I voted Legal/Ethical

kingliveson wrote:It would be nice to hear thought process of the Illegal/Ethical voter. Clearly, this is either a Vas hater, loves Science, or both.

Hi!
Cause I'm not the one, I can't answer for him, but probably he had in mind court decsions in which RE was judged actionable, the one I just remember at once is the Heise case from 2000, dealing with DVD decompilation.
It's a matter of different law in different countries and of course of the single case and judge but generally speaking it can be prohibited by licencing rigths.

Peter wrote:

kingliveson wrote:It would be nice to hear thought process of the Illegal/Ethical voter. Clearly, this is either a Vas hater, loves Science, or both.

Hi!
Cause I'm not the one, I can't answer for him, but probably he had in mind court decsions in which RE was judged actionable, the one I just remember at once is the Heise case from 2000, dealing with DVD decompilation.
It's a matter of different law in different countries and of course of the single case and judge but generally speaking it can be prohibited by licencing rigths.

The DVD case was a matter of the encryption which had to be broken in order to successfully reverse engineer the code. The DMCA has little to say about RE itself (if I recall), but prohibits the circumvention of technical protections in order to get at the code to be REd. Stupid law, and thoroughly unenforcable.

Jeremy Bernstein wrote: The DVD case was a matter of the encryption which had to be broken in order to successfully reverse engineer the code. The DMCA has little to say about RE itself (if I recall), but prohibits the circumvention of technical protections in order to get at the code to be REd. Stupid law, and thoroughly unenforcable.

Law seldomly is a matter of common sense, otherwise it was unnecessary.

In the case of matter it's a question of licencing rights defined by the producer, seller, distributor, and of course if he seeks lawful checkup.
BTW do you know, if Rajlich in the terms of license forbids RE expressly? I could seek for it at my R3 download from two years ago, but maybe you know already so?