syzygy wrote:hyatt wrote:Suppose those tiny pieces had been copied with full permission from Fabien. Would Vas then have infringed Rule 2 for not entering Fabien's name as co-author on the form? I think not. (Note that Fabien (not) giving permission is not an element of Rule 2: whether he gave it or not does not change whether Vas violated Rule 2 or not.)
Since both competed in the same event, yes it violates rule 2.
Assuming he violated Rule 2, do you agree that Vas would have still violated Rule 2 if he had had Fabien's full permission? Still "close derivates" in the same tournament, still not "all other authors" named?
Advance warning: the next step will be reminding you of people entering engines with code copied from crafty with your permission.
1. The ICGA rules have been clear. Toga was entered with Fabien's permission, as one example.
2. Programmers discussed the "shared code" idea several times. Consensus was that things like egtb.cpp were acceptable to everyone, and that's been allowed. Simplistic ideas like rotated bitboards, or 0x88, and such have also been allowed, including actual copying of some bits of code. We've never allowed anyone to copy a move generator, because there is creativity in that code. But the code to enumerate sliding piece moves is simplistic in nature, and always produces the same answer given the same position, and there has been agreement to allow that. Never anything in evaluation. never anything in the search, which includes move generation, make/unmake, SEE, ordering, etc...
So, if Vas had entered, and disclosed that parts of Fruit were in his code, and Fabien agreed he could compete (which would mean Fabien could not compete, of course) then it would have been perfectly acceptable by anyone's interpretation of the rules. There was already precedent with Toga.