I read something written by you on the Internet, which gives me the impression that there is a misunderstanding in case of the participation of Junior in the On Line Masters 2010.
There is one other type of offence that I would like to mention here in connection with cloning, namely entering a cloned program created by someone other than the entrant, in a tournament, with the entrant knowing it be a clone. One might draw an analogy between the criminal law offence of theft and the crime of handling goods knowing them to be stolen. This offence in the computer chess world is similar to one that recently caused something of a scandal in the Netherlands, when a board member of the Dutch Computer Chess Association (CSVN), the body that organises the prestigious Leiden tournaments entered a pirated copy of Junior in one of the major online annual tournaments. (See here for more details.) Put simply, if someone knows that a program has been ripped off, either by cloning or through piracy, they will not be permitted to use a ripped off copy to compete in any ICGA event.
Let me explain again.
For many years I receive almost all commercial programs for free. Hiarcs, Fritz, Junior, Rybka and so on. Chessbase and Hiarcs are sending them. I never asked for it. I can not do so for understandable reasons. In my room I have a complete collection of almost all Chessbase DVD's. Nobody gets any program from me. I have no financial benefit from selling programs.
In November a member of CSVN sent me by e-mail a version of the latest Junior only a couple of days before I would receive a "normal" version. The member of CSVN sent me an official Junior, with password and so on. I did not ask for it.
The Online Masters is an informal (no ICGA or CSVN organisation) tournament on Playchess in which friends meet with their favorite programs. Every commercial program has in principle one place. The day I decided to take part, from all latest "models" only Junior was not involved. I therefore subcribed Junior knowing for certain I would receive "my own" Junior in a matter of days. I did not think it to be necessary to postpone the first game for that. I played the first game with the present from our member. All other games with a Junior which I received from Mark Uniacke.
The matter was, as far as the Board of the CSVN concerned, solved by the understanding showed by Mr. Uniacke.
The scandal raised after the Board of CSVN decided not to invite Mr. H. Williamson anymore because of his his behaviour.
Cock de Gorter
> Nobody gets any program from me
This is a lie I still have an email Cock sent me years ago, before I ever met him, with several engines attached. I had not mentioned this before but now seems the time to do so. Cracked copies of the King that I have never used.
> The member of CSVN sent me an official Junior
Breaking the Junior licence.
> I would receive "my own" Junior in a matter of days.
The Chessbase version he was waiting for what not released until several weeks later.
> I never asked for it. I can not do so for understandable reasons.
Yes you did. you emailed mark asking for it after we had our meal.
> The matter was, as far as the Board of the CSVN concerned, solved by the understanding showed by Mr. Uniacke.
Mark and Amir have made their feelings clear and the matter in their eyes is not resolved.
> The Online Masters is an informal (no ICGA or CSVN organisation) tournament on Playchess in which friends meet with their favorite programs. Every commercial program has in principle one place. The day I decided to take part, from all latest "models" only Junior was not involved. I therefore subcribed Junior knowing for certain I would receive "my own" Junior in a matter of days. I did not think it to be necessary to postpone the first game for that. I played the first game with the present from our member. All other games with a Junior which I received from Mark Uniacke.
It was certainly wrong of the CSVN member to give Cock his/her copy, but in the circumstances what Cock did here in game 1 seems quite reasonable, if not fully legal. He thought that the Junior author would be appreciative of his efforts to get his software to play, and indeed he *should* have been appreciative. From game 2 onwards, Cock had his legal copy, which he had anticipated that he would get all along, and everything was fine from that point. The Junior author should be grateful that Cock got his program into the tourney, even if there was a slight temporary legal transgression. That is my opinion, others may disagree.
>In November a member of CSVN sent me by e-mail a version of the latest Junior only a couple of days before I would receive a "normal" version. The member of CSVN sent me an official Junior, with password and so on. I did not ask for it.
If this is true (and I assume it is) and that member didn't keep the license or the program ( I don't know), then everything was correct. In the EU it's perfectly legal to sell (or donate) any software as long as you don't keep a copy of it.
> If this is true (and I assume it is) and that member didn't keep the license or the program ( I don't know), then everything was correct. In the EU it's perfectly legal to sell (or donate) any software as long as you don't keep a copy of it.
Yes, I had thought of that, and it is a possibility. My assumption was that the member kept it himself as well
But of course it could have gone like this -
- member donates copy to Cock, does not retain licence
- subsequently Cock gets his own copy
- Cock donates back to the member, does not retain the licence
A storm in a teacup.
> Yes, I had thought of that, and it is a possibility. My assumption was that the member kept it himself as well
> But of course it could have gone like this -
> - member donates copy to Cock, does not retain licence
> - subsequently Cock gets his own copy
> - Cock donates back to the member, does not retain the licence
> All OK.
> A storm in a teacup.
There is no way- it is impossible- that I can be the only one who realizes the following>> NONE of any of this matters, and no one really cares. Not a bit of it means anything much anymore to anyone.
These bones would never have been dug up if Cock had not stated that he was allowing Rybka to play in this tournament. That is all this whole crock of shit is about.
Cock was waiting for a CB version that was not released for several weeks after the event.
If he had asked for a copy before the event started he would have got one instead he decided to use this illegal version.
You are right if he had also passed on the licence and uninstalled it from his own machine that would perhaps have been ok. Although the licence would then be in somebody elses name.
Just out of curiosity, does the EULA for Junior prohibit transfer of license?
You may not rent, lease, distribute, sublicense or otherwise transfer the
Software to any third party.
>You may not rent, lease, distribute, sublicense or otherwise transfer the Software to any third party.
I guess this also tries to prevent to sell it. This is certainly not valid in Germany. In fact the above license text might invalidate the whole license agreement in case there is no salvatorius clause.
I have bought software that used the "virtual book" license. I can use it, but if I sell it or give it away, I have to remove it from my system before someone else can install it on theirs. Just like giving someone a book you bought and read.
As I noted earlier in this thread, the European Court of Justice may yet make a judgement to change that.
> 3. RESTRICTIONS ON USE
> You may not rent, lease, distribute, sublicense or otherwise transfer the
> Software to any third party.
I've had older versions of engines given to me in their entirety (case, cd and manual) a long time back, when my fellow computer chess friend here no longer wanted them. They were uninstalled from his computer beforehand. Shouldn't be anything wrong with that whatsoever in my opinion.
But my guess is that if someone gives you a cd or dvd they must remove the software from their system.
>Just out of curiosity, does the EULA for Junior prohibit transfer of license?
In the EU this is irrelevant - you are allowed to transfer any license.
Are you referring to Article 4(2) of the European Computer Program Directive?
In English Law is has been accepted that specific contract terms over-ride the general provision of Article 4(2), and specifically that if a licence has a term that says the licence is non-transferable then it is non-transferable. In the UK we have to take care to rub software from PC's that we sell, give away or scrap, and have to re-negotiate software contracts in the event of mergers and acquisitions (I have personal experience of both of these), and even the companies that deal in second hand software licences in thr UK abide strictly by the non-transfer clauses of contracts (so, e.g. most Microsoft Licence cannot be tramsferred in most cirmcumstance, but some can in some circumstances). This holds true regardless of the media the software is supplied on and regardles so whether the licence is a standard one or negotiated individually.
I know that in Germany things are a bit different and in general software licence can be sold on. But I have read that in some circumstance even German courts are unclear on the meaning of Article 4(2) with regard to transfer (two different German Court came to opposite findings in two similar cases) and have referred the issue to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for clarification.
The judgement of the ECJ may change English Law, but it may also change German Law (and possibly beyond the scope of what German courts are asking for clarity on). A judgement from the ECJ is likely to take 2-3 years.
The person who created the software and sold the licence or the person who bought the licence in the first place?
Someone trying to make an honest effort at keeping engine chess "clean"... how many times in the past has this happened? How many of us appreciated efforts like his...
But then it happens with a version of Rybka and now all of a sudden the gentleman is basically a low-life bastard...
And how the people who could make such a determination (if it was a "clone")... how they "illegally acquired" it... all the blah blah blah associated with it…
Now you have a person who actually does sends a copy of a version of a chess engine... something the person plainly shouldn't have done...
So both Sender and Receiver and in the "wrong"... there is nothing honorable about this.
Why not instead did the de Gorter just do what essentially everyone else has to do (unless agreement with the author reached otherwise). Seems a person of his standing... a person who could go to a Michelin star'd restaurant... could just as easily take the 4 or 5 minutes it would take to make the purchase himself if he thought it that important. He's chairman of some important tournament? Too much to ask for him to set the example? Someone who publicly states “for many years I receive almost all commercial programs for free”… too much to ask for him to have to purchase one?
Yet look at all the stupid EULA debating and dumb excuses for what was done (to justify both persons) and how because Cock somehow wanted Harvey's approval or to somehow justify it... obtaining a pirated version of Junior and entering that pirated version in some tournament (bringing it up front of his wife with at dinner with Harvey)... Harvey "calls a spade a spade" yet Cock is somehow "in the right". His use of the copy of Junior ok???
Why??? Because he's the CSVN chairman? Because we know him for "such and such" period of time? What crap.
Such rank hypocrisy!
And now a number of “misstatements” or downright “untruths”… not very impressive from a so-called “chairman”. Mr. de Gorter started the “scandal” and could have just as easily ended it.
Amir Ban - The problem is that the "olive branch" was not "accepted gracefully" but at that you were plotting against Harvey at the same time. This has been explained to you. I understand you would like to see that matter closed but it takes two to tango. Your apology cannot be accepted until you retract Harvey's ban. As things stand, I cannot participate in your future events, whether personally or by representative.
I see 2 demands:
1. apology from Cock, done.
2. lifting Harvey's ban, done.
What's left to talk about ?
>When it comes down to believe you or Cock, that's an easy choice. The man is a living legend, who are you ?
>The man is also a gentleman, so yes, he offers you a lift despite of all, knowing you are a stranger in Holland not knowing your way.
>Last, you have changed your demand. At first you only wanted an apology for the ban, now you demand his resignation.
>You are just another killer-bee with one thing on your mind: destroy.
>Because you were hurt.
>Denying your own involvement in the drama.
>Try to be constructive for a change. Look for solutions.
I had a number of things to say to you Ed.
I felt you might be reasonable and we could discuss issues such as Cock's vindictive banning of Harvey...
But having just now seen the above post... and ones like the "apologize to Uly”… your last post I read at Talkchess (http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=40489&postdays=0&postorder=asc&topic_view=&start=160)
It is so terrible almost as if I just breathed in some stench that took my breath away.
You have no knowledge of these events. You weren't "eyewitness" almost a year ago when these things took place with CSVN. Or years (years!) ago with the incident with Dylan (Uly)! You speak unjustly and from nigh-complete ignorance. But somehow now you are in complete knowledge and some expert of all that transpired!
I am loathe to bring this up because I am sure you will find a way to twist it... but if Harvey should apologize to Dylan, then there should be four of us apologizing as we were ALL in one accord... complete agreement as to what Dylan did was, well let me say "inappropriate"... Rybka mods in agreement will remain un-named!
I'll say this... your perspective is very warped. But you go ahead and side with those who also maintain a warped perspective and spout "untruths". Somehow you can justify it to yourself. It appears in your world those who do wrong are acceptable and somehow justified. Problem is... you are going to have a very hard time justifying, to the One who is going to require a reckoning, the careless words you now speak.
So enjoy your reward... whatever small cult status you have here at Rybka Forum for the short time it lasts.
> as we were ALL in one accord... complete agreement as to what Dylan did was, well let me say "inappropriate"
I might add that of the 4 mods I was the only one not wanting a total ban. One of those mods was one that Ed brought with him.
It also reminds me that when Ed started his sub-forum on Hiarcs he would sit in judgement and decide who was to be admitted and who not. At the time I seem to remember that trotsky was not welcome.
de ja vu?
>I might add that of the 4 mods I was the only one not wanting a total ban
yes that is something I should have said...
> It also reminds me that when Ed started his sub-forum on Hiarcs he would sit in judgement and decide who was to be admitted and who not. At the time I seem to remember that trotsky was not welcome.
Yeah, some people are able to get over things, make peace and move on.
You could learn from it.
Especially since you and Cock were friends.
You would not allow Chris into your sub forum. possibly you would have done a few weeks later exactly as the panel would have done.
You did not get the apology you wanted.
As a result you now wants Cocks's resignation as chairman of the CSVN.
Odd kind of friendship.
I prefer mine to be unconditional.
His recent actions make me believe the only way to save the CSVN tournaments is for him to resign.
Are you now going to twist my words again?
> Yeah, some people are able to get over things, make peace and move on.
> You could learn from it.
> Especially since you and Cock were friends.
Am I the only person here who sees what is going on? Jesus. Like wives bitch at their husbands about something, but it is hardly ever what they are actually mad about.
If Cock had sent the ICGA panel a letter stating he backed their decisions, and was banning Vas from any future tournaments- Read My Lips- not one bone from the past would have been brought up. This doesn't have one happy shit to do with anything from the past. All would have been forgotten- if Cock had not told them Rybka was allowed to enter. That is really all this is about. You guys amaze me sometimes.
Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill