Annual reminder

[michiguel]

I'm not going to sign it with the current extra declarations.
I'm willing to declare that all of my chess programs are 100% my own work (well except 3 lines I stole from fairymax) but I'm not going to sign something that has not been reviewed by an apropriate lawyer.

It is not a contract, it is a pledge.

Miguel

[flok]

I'm not going to sign it with the current extra declarations.
I'm willing to declare that all of my chess programs are 100% my own work (well except 3 lines I stole from fairymax) but I'm not going to sign something that has not been reviewed by an apropriate lawyer.

It is not a contract, it is a pledge.

Miguel

That doesn't stop a judge for considering it as an intention.

[bob]

In case you are new to chess programming (welcome!) then surely you are aware of the ongoing controversy regarding cloning of open sources, taking ideas and/or code from others, the so called ethics of a chess programmer.

In the past a large part of the chess programmers community (currently 38) have subscribed to an ethical code of honor in which transparency about the origin is much more important than the origin itself.

As such we offer you the chance to become a member of the programmer code of honor via: [ http://www.top-5000.nl/programmer_code.htm ] and describe your work.

I wish you a good ELO hunt but most of all the feeling of satisfaction our creative hobby gives.

As I have mentioned in the past, this is simply "computer science ethics 101." Signing such a pledge is pointless, because there is no way to enforce it. Ethics comes from within, not from signing something on the outside. If you have a sense of ethics, there's no need for such a pledge, If you don't, the pledge is completely pointless anyway.

I suppose there is nothing wrong with doing such a pledge, but then again there is nothing particularly "right" about it either. As it won't change anything at all.

And based on the enormous gap between what some think ICGA rule 2 (originality) means and what others think it means, this doesn't do anything to narrow that gap at all.

[cdani]

In case you are new to chess programming (welcome!) then surely you are aware of the ongoing controversy regarding cloning of open sources, taking ideas and/or code from others, the so called ethics of a chess programmer.

In the past a large part of the chess programmers community (currently 38) have subscribed to an ethical code of honor in which transparency about the origin is much more important than the origin itself.

As such we offer you the chance to become a member of the programmer code of honor via: [ http://www.top-5000.nl/programmer_code.htm ] and describe your work.

I wish you a good ELO hunt but most of all the feeling of satisfaction our creative hobby gives.

As I have mentioned in the past, this is simply "computer science ethics 101." Signing such a pledge is pointless, because there is no way to enforce it. Ethics comes from within, not from signing something on the outside. If you have a sense of ethics, there's no need for such a pledge, If you don't, the pledge is completely pointless anyway.

I suppose there is nothing wrong with doing such a pledge, but then again there is nothing particularly "right" about it either. As it won't change anything at all.

And based on the enormous gap between what some think ICGA rule 2 (originality) means and what others think it means, this doesn't do anything to narrow that gap at all.

+1

[Rebel]

In case you are new to chess programming (welcome!) then surely you are aware of the ongoing controversy regarding cloning of open sources, taking ideas and/or code from others, the so called ethics of a chess programmer.

In the past a large part of the chess programmers community (currently 38) have subscribed to an ethical code of honor in which transparency about the origin is much more important than the origin itself.

As such we offer you the chance to become a member of the programmer code of honor via: [ http://www.top-5000.nl/programmer_code.htm ] and describe your work.

I wish you a good ELO hunt but most of all the feeling of satisfaction our creative hobby gives.

As I have mentioned in the past, this is simply "computer science ethics 101." Signing such a pledge is pointless, because there is no way to enforce it. Ethics comes from within, not from signing something on the outside. If you have a sense of ethics, there's no need for such a pledge, If you don't, the pledge is completely pointless anyway.

I suppose there is nothing wrong with doing such a pledge, but then again there is nothing particularly "right" about it either. As it won't change anything at all.

And based on the enormous gap between what some think ICGA rule 2 (originality) means and what others think it means, this doesn't do anything to narrow that gap at all.

1. It has nothing to with ICGA rule #2 which is an obstacle to progress, on the contrary, part of the pledge encourages folks who start from open sources who might hide in fear for the wrath of some parts of the CC community (as we have seen in the past) to subscribe knowning they do nothing wrong as long as they are open about the origin of their engine. The pledge has its nose directed to the future.

2. Creating awareness. According to the WIKI slavery was already present in 8000 BC. Slavery in my country was abolished in 1863. Apparently the human race (and all its governments) needed about 10,000 years to come to the conclusion slavery is wrong. Looking back you can only shake your head in unbelief why it took that long. Awareness created that, MLK and Mandela as two striking examples.

3. RE is wrong, the pledge takes a firm stance against it, creating awareness of that. There are still people who like to gloss over it. And some things need time, RE is one of such issues.

[michiguel]

In case you are new to chess programming (welcome!) then surely you are aware of the ongoing controversy regarding cloning of open sources, taking ideas and/or code from others, the so called ethics of a chess programmer.

In the past a large part of the chess programmers community (currently 38) have subscribed to an ethical code of honor in which transparency about the origin is much more important than the origin itself.

As such we offer you the chance to become a member of the programmer code of honor via: [ http://www.top-5000.nl/programmer_code.htm ] and describe your work.

I wish you a good ELO hunt but most of all the feeling of satisfaction our creative hobby gives.

Only in this dysfunctional community this honor code becomes controversial and contested. It happens every single time this thread come up. We are hopeless.

If anybody has a disagreement with it, then do not join it. Some things are not that complicated. Geeezz...

Miguel

[bob]

In case you are new to chess programming (welcome!) then surely you are aware of the ongoing controversy regarding cloning of open sources, taking ideas and/or code from others, the so called ethics of a chess programmer.

In the past a large part of the chess programmers community (currently 38) have subscribed to an ethical code of honor in which transparency about the origin is much more important than the origin itself.

As such we offer you the chance to become a member of the programmer code of honor via: [ http://www.top-5000.nl/programmer_code.htm ] and describe your work.

I wish you a good ELO hunt but most of all the feeling of satisfaction our creative hobby gives.

As I have mentioned in the past, this is simply "computer science ethics 101." Signing such a pledge is pointless, because there is no way to enforce it. Ethics comes from within, not from signing something on the outside. If you have a sense of ethics, there's no need for such a pledge, If you don't, the pledge is completely pointless anyway.

I suppose there is nothing wrong with doing such a pledge, but then again there is nothing particularly "right" about it either. As it won't change anything at all.

And based on the enormous gap between what some think ICGA rule 2 (originality) means and what others think it means, this doesn't do anything to narrow that gap at all.

1. It has nothing to with ICGA rule #2 which is an obstacle to progress, on the contrary, part of the pledge encourages folks who start from open sources who might hide in fear for the wrath of some parts of the CC community (as we have seen in the past) to subscribe knowning they do nothing wrong as long as they are open about the origin of their engine. The pledge has its nose directed to the future.

2. Creating awareness. According to the WIKI slavery was already present in 8000 BC. Slavery in my country was abolished in 1863. Apparently the human race (and all its governments) needed about 10,000 years to come to the conclusion slavery is wrong. Looking back you can only shake your head in unbelief why it took that long. Awareness created that, MLK and Mandela as two striking examples.

3. RE is wrong, the pledge takes a firm stance against it, creating awareness of that. There are still people who like to gloss over it. And some things need time, RE is one of such issues.

First slavery is _still_ alive and well. I doubt it will ever go away.

Second, I have not seen this "wrath of the CC community." I don't call catching people that violate rules anything related to "a wrath".

Finally, RE is not wrong. It is what you do with the RE knowledge that can be right or wrong. There's absolutely nothing that prevents someone from looking in a binary file, legally. Because there is no way to enforce such a law. But there are actions that can be taken if the knowledge discovered by RE is used inappropriately. Again you like to criticize rule 2 for vagueness, and then you have a pledge that is not just vague, it is actually wrong in regard to RE.

That is not the way to "create clarity."

[bob]

In case you are new to chess programming (welcome!) then surely you are aware of the ongoing controversy regarding cloning of open sources, taking ideas and/or code from others, the so called ethics of a chess programmer.

In the past a large part of the chess programmers community (currently 38) have subscribed to an ethical code of honor in which transparency about the origin is much more important than the origin itself.

As such we offer you the chance to become a member of the programmer code of honor via: [ http://www.top-5000.nl/programmer_code.htm ] and describe your work.

I wish you a good ELO hunt but most of all the feeling of satisfaction our creative hobby gives.

Only in this dysfunctional community this honor code becomes controversial and contested. It happens every single time this thread come up. We are hopeless.

If anybody has a disagreement with it, then do not join it. Some things are not that complicated. Geeezz...

Miguel

It is not "controversial and contested." Best word to describe it would be "pointless."

[Rebel]

In case you are new to chess programming (welcome!) then surely you are aware of the ongoing controversy regarding cloning of open sources, taking ideas and/or code from others, the so called ethics of a chess programmer.

In the past a large part of the chess programmers community (currently 38) have subscribed to an ethical code of honor in which transparency about the origin is much more important than the origin itself.

As such we offer you the chance to become a member of the programmer code of honor via: [ http://www.top-5000.nl/programmer_code.htm ] and describe your work.

I wish you a good ELO hunt but most of all the feeling of satisfaction our creative hobby gives.

As I have mentioned in the past, this is simply "computer science ethics 101." Signing such a pledge is pointless, because there is no way to enforce it. Ethics comes from within, not from signing something on the outside. If you have a sense of ethics, there's no need for such a pledge, If you don't, the pledge is completely pointless anyway.

I suppose there is nothing wrong with doing such a pledge, but then again there is nothing particularly "right" about it either. As it won't change anything at all.

And based on the enormous gap between what some think ICGA rule 2 (originality) means and what others think it means, this doesn't do anything to narrow that gap at all.

1. It has nothing to with ICGA rule #2 which is an obstacle to progress, on the contrary, part of the pledge encourages folks who start from open sources who might hide in fear for the wrath of some parts of the CC community (as we have seen in the past) to subscribe knowning they do nothing wrong as long as they are open about the origin of their engine. The pledge has its nose directed to the future.

2. Creating awareness. According to the WIKI slavery was already present in 8000 BC. Slavery in my country was abolished in 1863. Apparently the human race (and all its governments) needed about 10,000 years to come to the conclusion slavery is wrong. Looking back you can only shake your head in unbelief why it took that long. Awareness created that, MLK and Mandela as two striking examples.

3. RE is wrong, the pledge takes a firm stance against it, creating awareness of that. There are still people who like to gloss over it. And some things need time, RE is one of such issues.

First slavery is _still_ alive and well. I doubt it will ever go away.

Second, I have not seen this "wrath of the CC community." I don't call catching people that violate rules anything related to "a wrath".

Finally, RE is not wrong. It is what you do with the RE knowledge that can be right or wrong. There's absolutely nothing that prevents someone from looking in a binary file, legally. Because there is no way to enforce such a law. But there are actions that can be taken if the knowledge discovered by RE is used inappropriately. Again you like to criticize rule 2 for vagueness, and then you have a pledge that is not just vague, it is actually wrong in regard to RE.

That is not the way to "create clarity."

As already stated, your ICGA has nothing to do with the pledge. While the EU has declared RE illegal (*not in every case, see below) the Law isn't even the point. It's about morals. Self understood morality that you don't steal the novelty (secrets) of your colleagues (competitors).

*Investigating a binary for alleged copyright breach, GPL breach, tournament rule breach has nothing to do with the pledge, it's legal everywhere, also in the EU.

[Rebel]

The harvest so far, 5 new subscriptions, an increase of 15% moving from 38 to 43. Two oldies, a pleasure to read.