OpenChess

Peter wrote:

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?

I don't believe that I got a terms of license with my copies of Rybka (R3 via Aquarium 2010/CA10, R4 via CA11). I can't find one, in any case.

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

Peter wrote:

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?

I don't believe that I got a terms of license with my copies of Rybka (R3 via Aquarium 2010/CA10, R4 via CA11). I can't find one, in any case.

it may not be true in all jurisdictions, but it will mostly be the case that if there were licence restrictions, these would have needed to have been made very clear to you BEFORE purchase. it's no good making a sale and purchase contract with a customer and then, afterwards, even by including some text terms in the product, that makes restrictions the purchaser didn't know about beforehand.

Imagine you buy a house. When you take possession you discover a letter inside telling you an additional term of contract: the purchase excludes your right to live in the house .....

Chris Whittington wrote:

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

Peter wrote:

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?

I don't believe that I got a terms of license with my copies of Rybka (R3 via Aquarium 2010/CA10, R4 via CA11). I can't find one, in any case.

it may not be true in all jurisdictions, but it will mostly be the case that if there were licence restrictions, these would have needed to have been made very clear to you BEFORE purchase. it's no good making a sale and purchase contract with a customer and then, afterwards, even by including some text terms in the product, that makes restrictions the purchaser didn't know about beforehand.

Imagine you buy a house. When you take possession you discover a letter inside telling you an additional term of contract: the purchase excludes your right to live in the house .....

If you buy a matchet there is an unwritten sales agreement that you don't uses it against your local town mayor

Chan Rasjid wrote:

Chris Whittington wrote:

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

Peter wrote:

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?

I don't believe that I got a terms of license with my copies of Rybka (R3 via Aquarium 2010/CA10, R4 via CA11). I can't find one, in any case.

it may not be true in all jurisdictions, but it will mostly be the case that if there were licence restrictions, these would have needed to have been made very clear to you BEFORE purchase. it's no good making a sale and purchase contract with a customer and then, afterwards, even by including some text terms in the product, that makes restrictions the purchaser didn't know about beforehand.

Imagine you buy a house. When you take possession you discover a letter inside telling you an additional term of contract: the purchase excludes your right to live in the house .....

If you buy a matchet there is an unwritten sales agreement that you don't uses it against your local town mayor

Well, Lenin once famously said: The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.

Chris Whittington wrote:

Chan Rasjid wrote:

Chris Whittington wrote:

Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

Peter wrote:

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?

I don't believe that I got a terms of license with my copies of Rybka (R3 via Aquarium 2010/CA10, R4 via CA11). I can't find one, in any case.

it may not be true in all jurisdictions, but it will mostly be the case that if there were licence restrictions, these would have needed to have been made very clear to you BEFORE purchase. it's no good making a sale and purchase contract with a customer and then, afterwards, even by including some text terms in the product, that makes restrictions the purchaser didn't know about beforehand.

Imagine you buy a house. When you take possession you discover a letter inside telling you an additional term of contract: the purchase excludes your right to live in the house .....

If you buy a matchet there is an unwritten sales agreement that you don't uses it against your local town mayor

Well, Lenin once famously said: The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.

Hi Chris !

What about soap ??????

Silvian

Chris Whittington wrote:Well, Lenin once famously said: The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.

Somebody messed up the order and they got soap on a rope instead.

We know the people that come to the chess forum are pretty passionate about chess. Even tho this is a low amount of votes in general it does point to a deep consensus that more then 8 out of 10 feel they are legal. Thus its obvious the current rating lists for engines available and taken as legit and more then over whelmingly accepted by most are clearly biased. This is a clear case of the minority ruling the majority and a total shame. I hope the organizers of several rating lists take a good hard look at such results. Cudos to letoAtreides82 of another thread here and someone on the inside of rating lists in general for having enough balls to step forward and put up a private list testing Ippo based Houdini ^5

Regards
BT

I wouldn't say it's a low number of votes considering that this forum is brand new. As stated before, this poll is a clone of another from talkchess (before its Rybka acquisition), and just compare the numbers.

Time is the factor, many people thought differently about this issue in November 2009.

kingliveson wrote:I wouldn't say it's a low number of votes considering that this forum is brand new. As stated before, this poll is a clone of another from talkchess (before its Rybka acquisition), and just compare the numbers.

Thanks king. Again as gino said time too has played a part but what is clear......is back then ...most thought they were legal and since then the direction of thinking has only gone more so to the legal and ethical. I really think its time to allow them in all rating lists. I can see the rules for a tournament maybe needing a author to sign up but as far as rating lists go this is a completely different animal in which as chess players we are only concerned with what is the best software avail to aid our game.

Respects
BT