As my R3/IPPOLIT report seems to be being used in the kangaroo courts of TalkChess, perhaps I should comment:
I didn't exactly mean "kangaroo courts" as derogatory here, just merely that they were "extra-legal" and so of little real value to some extent.
For some reason, there seems to be a whole thread about me (or at least my nickname
).
I think its funny that "BB" chooses to read this forum and quote this forum and yet answer elsewhere [...]we certainly welcome him to feel free to post here
See "history of censorship" at TalkChess. I have no desire to have expression of my views be totally dependent (not only in theory, but provably in practise) on the whims of moderators, and further have a Charter that explicitly prohibits me any recourse. [I happen to think that "Steve B" (yes, I know his real name, though at least from Jul 2006 real names are "expected") is quite a good moderator, but TalkChess seems to be perpetually "one misbegotten election" from despotism].
Larry Kaufman and Zach Wegner have met him and can vouch for his authenticity.
I don't think I have ever met Larry Kaufman. [I'm also not quite sure what makes a person "authentic" as it were].
My only criticism of BB is that he is a chronic hedger.
I agree that I (overly) often avoid coming to a conclusion, as my first purpose is to lay out the facts, and let others draw conclusions. There's also the fact that I occasionally get quoted (both in/out of context) for quasi-political purposes and/or hyperbole, and frequently need to present additional
nuance.
My main problem with the whole debate is that imprecision still rules the day -- for instance, Don Dailey states (quite reasonably in the context): "On the other hand, taking something that is clearly open source and using it seems to be viewed as even MORE reprehensible [than reverse engineering]" -- now what does "using it" mean here? Are we talking merely of "ideas", or of using it as "code" (the latter of which is grossly unethical with respect to the GPL, and likely illegal)? [I might add that, in my own line of work, I have met some who actually think it is unethical to take even "ideas" from open source software, their argument being that the purposes of open source are to allow code-sharing with other open source projects and to allow end-users to modify the code for various reasons, but
not to provide the intellectual property therein for "commercial" purposes].
I don't know why he does not publish his name. I do think it would be better if he did
Perhaps I know history too well. When you know who someone is, it is easier to attack him/her [or merely some facet therein], rather than engage thought. For instance, Felix at the Rybka forum occasionally gets random slurs regarding the history of the National Socialist party thrown at him, which seems quite out of line, but if you're angry at him and recall he's German (made easier via the ip-address-based flags provided by the forum software), well, men are not known to restrain their passions. Internet arguments have been known to spiral much out of control. I've seen cases where employers have been contacted, and as many middle managers are weak-spined, they cave in and let off-job blog comments on an unpopular subject trump consideration of job performance. Finally, as a scientist, I've seen questions of person/status frequently become overly relevant due to political considerations. It's just easier to avoid such problems when I can.
did u know it? 
