releasing or not releasing source code

[Uri Blass]

I thought about the part of cheating and I think that at least in the academic world there can be a solution for that.

problem (written by Reinhard):
"pupils could 'create' their solutions and articles to tasks given from their teachers by searching in the web for foreign solutions."

solution:
pupils will have to give not only the final source code but all the process of work that was done so the teachers can watch all the process of creating the source code from start to finish including cases when the pupil generated a bug and fixed it and what they did to fix it.

I think that checking all of this work can be more productive for pupils because teachers can suggest them more efficient ways to find bugs in the future or better ideas how to avoid bugs in the first place.

Giving only the final code as the solution not only encourage cheating but also is less productive for the pupils.

The problem today(that in theory can be easily solved) is that I do not know of a way to save automatically all the work that was done(I can say undo redo but only for a limited time) and there is no reason for that because there are many terabytes that are not used and saving all the process of writing code in a special file certainly requires less than 1 terabytes.

Uri

[Dan Honeycutt]

I have offered plenty of suggestions to chess program authors.

I know And it's good of you to do that. I had just never thought of that as a reason to release source code. Learn something new every day.

Dan H.

[Dann Corbit]

Another reason why it is not bad to release source code:
It shows that you are beyond reproach as far as taking someone else's code without permission.

Now, I do not have any kind of problem with not releasing source code also.

I think either choice is just fine.

[Uri Blass]

releasing source code is no proof of originality.

If it is important for a person to cheat by not original code he can pay to
another programmer so the second programmer send him a source code that he can release.

Uri

[Uri Blass]

Note also that it is no proof for not taking someone else's code without permission

It is possible that person A sent his source to person B.
B died and A release the source code of B without telling the public that it is B's code and without permission of B.

Uri

[Dann Corbit]

Release of source code only offers some proof that the code is not stolen.

But it is more proof than no proof.

And if a person dies and then someone claims the code as his originality, he is taking a big risk that someone else does not have the same code and is therefore aware of the lie.

It would be strange to me that someone would do that. But people really do very strange things.

I do not understand how persons can feel pleasure knowing inside that they are phonies, and 'glory/adulation' received is adulation of a lie.

[Dan Honeycutt]

releasing source code is no proof of originality.

If it is important for a person to cheat by not original code he can pay to
another programmer so the second programmer send him a source code that he can release.

Uri

I don't understand. I can look at the source and see it's not a clone of Crafty or any other open source engine. I'd say it's an original work - of the guy you paid, not you.

Dan H.

[Uri Blass]

Maybe there is a misunderstanding in english.

Every code is based on an original work of somebody and I thought that when you say that code is original you mean that the person who claim to be the author is really the author and not only that the code is not something that was published in the past.

Uri

[Peter Eizenhammer]

Maybe there is a misunderstanding in english.

Every code is based on an original work of somebody and I thought that when you say that code is original you mean that the person who claim to be the author is really the author and not only that the code is not something that was published in the past.

Uri

Who knows, Bob Hyatts grandma could have written most of the crafty code,
but she is such a modest person...

Peter

[Dan Honeycutt]

Maybe there is a misunderstanding in english.
Every code is based on an original work of somebody and I thought that when you say that code is original you mean that the person who claim to be the author is really the author and not only that the code is not something that was published in the past.
Uri

Hi Uri:

Maybe we are saying the same thing. I think publishing the source does prove originality (or may disprove it). It does not prove that I wrote it. Like you say, I could have paid someone to write it or, like Peter says, my grandmother could have written it.

Dan H.