Page 9 of 15
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 3:36 pm
by Harvey Williamson
Jeremy Bernstein wrote:Harvey Williamson wrote:Jeremy Bernstein wrote:
Q: Why don't you allow participation of Ippolit, Robbolito, Houdini engines on your online chess platform?
Harvey Williamson: Those engines are suspicious. Vasik Rajlich said they are clones of Rybka, and they're not listed by CCRL.
One thing that is illegal all over the world is to quote words that have not been said.
An additional universal all over the world is satire. But Harvey Williamson, as long as you're here, I have a question: Why don't you allow participation of Ippolit, Robbolito, Houdini engines on your online chess platform?
I do not have an online platform.
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 3:37 pm
by Jeremy Bernstein
Harvey Williamson wrote:Jeremy Bernstein wrote:Harvey Williamson wrote:Jeremy Bernstein wrote:
Q: Why don't you allow participation of Ippolit, Robbolito, Houdini engines on your online chess platform?
Harvey Williamson: Those engines are suspicious. Vasik Rajlich said they are clones of Rybka, and they're not listed by CCRL.
One thing that is illegal all over the world is to quote words that have not been said.
An additional universal all over the world is satire. But Harvey Williamson, as long as you're here, I have a question: Why don't you allow participation of Ippolit, Robbolito, Houdini engines on your online chess platform?
I do not have an online platform.
Let me rephrase: Why don't you allow participation of Ippolit, Robbolito, Houdini engines in the PlayChess Machine Room?
Jeremy
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 3:40 pm
by Harvey Williamson
Engines with unknown authors have never been allowed so that deals with most of them. As for he rest of your question here is not the place to discuss it.
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 3:53 pm
by Jeremy Bernstein
Harvey Williamson wrote:Engines with unknown authors have never been allowed so that deals with most of them. As for he rest of your question here is not the place to discuss it.
You're right. I hate it when people do that. Here's the place to discuss it:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1034
Looking forward to the discussion.
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:52 pm
by orgfert
Sentinel wrote:orgfert wrote:At talkchess there is none.
You all (Bob included) just wave how Sam blows. He gives you a little illusion of control and power, but in the end it's his own interest that is supported.
The tenet of conspiracy formulae is that outcomes against a wish or expectation are the result of hidden planning and contrary interest.
Sentinel wrote: Whether his interest is classic commercial interest as CB is another question.
Reasonable people find it difficult to acquire the impression that Sam Hull has ever had an interest in chess or cc.
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 620#355620
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 7:56 am
by Prima
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 9:03 am
by Jeremy Bernstein
Although Fabien's view of the situation is certainly relevant, particularly from the ethical standpoint, the ultimate authority is the Free Software Foundation and their interpretation of the GPL (Fabien signed Fruit over to them). Obviously, if the original author feels that his code has been appropriated improperly, the FSF should take a closer look. But I wouldn't expect federal agents to confiscate Vas' laptop anytime soon.
This entire situation throws the ethical issues into high relief, and on the ethical level, it's a much more personal and moral/religious dilemma. If you feel that Vasik has done something ethically wrong, you probably should grant that the Ippo people (and Robert Houdart, who didn't take Ippolit unwittingly as a starting point) are doing something ethically wrong, as well.
I tend to think that both have done exactly what nearly everyone else in the technology industry does: carefully analyze the competitor, steal the best ideas and grab market share. Ethically questionable? Granted. Illegal? Probably not. But both need to be measured with exactly the same stick. The fact that Rybka is commercial and closed-source is irrelevant (well, if Rybka were GPL open-source, none of this would be an issue at all, but you know what I mean).
Jeremy
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 9:20 am
by thorstenczub
Harvey Williamson wrote:Engines with unknown authors have never been allowed so that deals with most of them. As for he rest of your question here is not the place to discuss it.
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 9:22 am
by thorstenczub
orgfert wrote:Sentinel wrote:orgfert wrote:At talkchess there is none.
You all (Bob included) just wave how Sam blows. He gives you a little illusion of control and power, but in the end it's his own interest that is supported.
The tenet of conspiracy formulae is that outcomes against a wish or expectation are the result of hidden planning and contrary interest.
Sentinel wrote: Whether his interest is classic commercial interest as CB is another question.
Reasonable people find it difficult to acquire the impression that Sam Hull has ever had an interest in chess or cc.
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 620#355620
When he was a regular member, the only topics he ever was able to contribute to was evangelical Christianism.
Raptor christianism.
Re: Fabien's open letter to the community
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 10:02 am
by Hood
Jeremy Bernstein wrote:
Although Fabien's view of the situation is certainly relevant, particularly from the ethical standpoint, the ultimate authority is the Free Software Foundation and their interpretation of the GPL (Fabien signed Fruit over to them). Obviously, if the original author feels that his code has been appropriated improperly, the FSF should take a closer look. But I wouldn't expect federal agents to confiscate Vas' laptop anytime soon.
This entire situation throws the ethical issues into high relief, and on the ethical level, it's a much more personal and moral/religious dilemma. If you feel that Vasik has done something ethically wrong, you probably should grant that the Ippo people (and Robert Houdart, who didn't take Ippolit unwittingly as a starting point) are doing something ethically wrong, as well.
I tend to think that both have done exactly what nearly everyone else in the technology industry does: carefully analyze the competitor, steal the best ideas and grab market share. Ethically questionable? Granted. Illegal? Probably not. But both need to be measured with exactly the same stick. The fact that Rybka is commercial and closed-source is irrelevant (well, if Rybka were GPL open-source, none of this would be an issue at all, but you know what I mean).
Jeremy
It is very dificult question and answer if ethical, moral,..
Someone has sometimes invented the wheel , were other people unethical using wheel ?
Someone has invented the car,are next cars constructors immoral ? Shall they designed the car on 5 wheels not on 4 ?
Someone has prepared opening variation and played it successfully can others use it without permission, what about author rights ?
It looks that developments of mind are propierty of all.
The development of mankind is based on the experiences and developments of predecessors. Is it possible to change ?