Linux Time

[hceylan]

I think linux got on well so far. Rather then emulations, I think we as linux users need a better solution rather then running under wine...

 

Sincerely,

Hasan Ceylan

[fred]

I think linux got on well so far. Rather then emulations, I think we as linux users need a better solution rather then running under wine...

 

Sincerely,

Hasan Ceylan

Sorry, but BBO is not going to provide you with a better solution in the foreseeable future.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[EdwardRF]

If bbo is willing to provide the relavent documents, i think i can setup a group to port the software to linux in the opensource way. Since bbo is free, it would be a greate imporvement if it has step into linux world. Futhurmore, i am thinking making a java version of bbo so that it would be platform independent and can be run under even a web browser. Is there any supporter?

 

Regards

EdwardRF

[fred]

If bbo is willing to provide the relavent documents, i think i can setup a group to port the software to linux in the opensource way. Since bbo is free, it would be a greate imporvement if it has step into linux world. Futhurmore, i am thinking making a java version of bbo so that it would be platform independent and can be run under even a web browser. Is there any supporter?

 

Regards

EdwardRF

Sorry, but we are not willing to provide the relevant documents and help to you or to anyone else.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[EdwardRF]

Is there a reason for that? Don't you think porting BBO to other platforms would benefit BBO in the long run? If there is any issue about the license, i can definatly have a agreement with you, i totally repect your intellectual property. I am just one of the millions who hates windows and micro$oft, and really willing to help.

[uday]

There are reasons that seem sufficient to us. Feel free to email fred@ if you are curious but I don't think we will enter a public debate here on the topic

[fred]

I don't want to get into a public debate about this either, but since it is not rare for me to be asked about this (and since no doubt many Forums readers are now wondering), I am going to publicly state my position on this.

 

Really there are 2 issues here. The issue of Linux and the issue of "open source".

 

Our position on Linux is easy to justify:

 

- Only a small % of people with PCs use Linux

- Many of these people have access to PCs with Windows (or have the option of booting up their Linux machines in Windows)

- BBO seems to work just fine under WINE (a free Windows emulator for Linux)

- Maintaining 2 versions of the same program is something I would just as soon avoid.

 

To summarize: In my opinion it would be a tremendous waste of our limited resources to develop a native Linux version for BBO because I believe that there is no need for such a program. It makes a lot more sense for us to spend our time and money improving the Windows version of the software.

 

If a LOT more people start using Linux (or if BBO stops working under WINE or if we run out of more important work to do or...) we may reevaluate this position.

 

Perhaps when the time comes for us to rewrite the BBO client we will use some kind of cross-platform development environment.

 

My position on "open source":

 

Business was not part of the plan when I first created the BBO software, but BBO has evolved into a genuine business. Although it is hard to predict the future, my instincts suggest that going in the direction of "open source" would be bad for our business (and could potentially completely destroy it).

 

Of course you have the right to disagree with this assessment and no doubt we could get into a long (and possibly interesting) discussion on this point, but the bottom line is that you can't predict the future either. Since BBO represents my livelihood (as well as the livelyhoods of my partners and the people who work for us) I am not inclined to gamble that everything will work out if we make the move to open source.

 

Besides making my living from writing bridge software, the other reason I write bridge software is because I enjoy doing this. My sense is that I would get very little enjoyment out of being involved in an open source project.

 

Again you may disagree, but that would be out of line: this is really a personal matter. I like working either on my own or with (very) small groups of other programmers that I know, like, trust, and respect.

 

Of course I could be wrong about how much I would enjoy working on an open source project, but this is another area in which I am not inclined to gamble: I enjoy the way I work now and I think we have been successful - I don't want to mess with something that is already working for me.

 

Other open source advocates have tried to tell me that turning BBO into an open source project would not require my involvement. I have found claims like these to be remarkably ignorant given that they invariably come from people who have never seen the BBO source code and have little or no idea of how our software actually works.

 

The same goes for a doing a Linux port - I would have to be intimately involved in this project regardless of how good a programmer you are.

 

To summarize: I do not want to turn BBO into an open source project because I think it is likely that this would be bad for our business and make me miserable at the same time. I could easily be wrong, but I would just as soon not take this chance.

 

I do appreciate your offer to help and I hope you can appreciate the reasons for my position of saying "no thanks", even if you disagree with these reasons.

 

You don't sound like one of those people who is inclined to attempt to "reverse engineer" what we have created without our permission, but while we are on the subject, I want to state for the record what I think of these creatures:

 

They are parasites who are unable to create anything of value on their own. Instead they survive by sucking the blood out of those who can create. They are Blood-Sucking Ghouls (BSGs).

 

BSGs sometimes try to appear human by asking permission to suck the blood of others, but this is a sham - if they are denied permission, they have no qualms about taking what they want by force.

 

Remarkably, these BSGs often try to claim the moral high ground, but don't be fooled by this: they are monsters.

 

Needless to say (I hope) we are prepared to do whatever it takes, both legally and technically, to prevent the BSGs from feeding on our blood.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

They are parasites who are unable to create anything of value on their own. Instead they survive by sucking the blood out of those who can create. They are Blood-Sucking Ghouls (BSGs).

Hi Fred...

 

It strikes me that you are adopting a somewhat extreme position. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with that – I do it all the time – but in this case, I think that your judgement is somewhat off...

 

The crux of your argument appears to be that Open Source developers are inherently “uncreative”. Open Source projects are are capable of copying existing software, but they are unable to innovate in their own right. Your dead wrong on this one. I readily admit that there are a number of examples of Open Source projects clone commercial products, however, this competition is by no means restricted to the Open Source world. The annals of business are full of example where product innovators were displaced by new entrants who focused on low cost manufacturing, supply chain efficiency, or some other form of process innovation. Lotus lost to Excel. WordStar was displaced by Word. To use a contemporary advantage, TiVo created the market for Personal Video Recorders. However, very few analysts expect that the company will survive in the long run. At MIT's Sloan School, the concept of second mover advantage is almost a given.

 

Equally significant, there are a number of well know examples where Open Source projects have resulted in significant innovations. Apache, Struts, and Fetchmail are probably the best known examples where Open Source projects were responsible for significant innovation. There a number of additional examples if anyone really cares.

 

From my own perspective, the debate between Open Source and proprietary software design is a small part of a much more significant issue. There are a number of examples where perfectly competitive markets do not result in “efficient” outcomes. “Tragedy of the commons” type resource extraction problems and negative externalities (pollution, etc.) are both well know example. Goods whose development cost feature a very high fixed costs relative to the variable cost is another example. (In plain English, its costs a very large amount of money to produce the first unit. However, additional units can be produced/distributed for almost nothing). Software, digital media, and pharmaceuticals are all contemporary examples where this dynamic holds true. Its going to be a long time before society is able to straighten this one out...

 

One last comment (which will probably come across as rather harsh)

 

When you characterize Open Source developers “parasites” and “blood sucking ghouls”, do you include yourself in that same category? Matt Clegg's OKBridge created the Online Bridge market. The company pioneered any number of common innovations (Windows interface, online VuGraph, ACBL affiliated tournaments). Bridge Base Online is very much a second mover which has displaced the original innovator. What do you think that Matt Clegg thinks about BBO and the free services which are competing against his own “pay to play” web site? BBO has certainly introduced a number of significant innovations above and beyond OKB's original product offerings. However, BBO started as a free site which cannibalized a commercial product.

 

Its possible that you differentiate between the BBO example and “Open Source” development based on the fact that BBO developed all of its code completely independent of OKBridge... With this said and done, the same holds true for almost every Open Source project that I'm aware of. There have been a number of code piracy cases involving code leaks between Open Source and proprietary development projects. (The SCO case is undoubtedly the best known example). I'm not aware of any significant cases in which the proprietary developers have been able to establish code piracy by Open Source groups. I can point to a number of case where companies maintaining proprietary projects have been convicted of expropriating Open Source code in violation of the GPL.

[helene_t]

Hey Richard, Fred only said that reverse engineers are BSGs, not that all open source people are BSGs.

 

In an ideal world, I would be entusiastic about the idea of turning BBO into some open bridge communication standard where everybody could add their own servers and/or clients to the network, either using freeware clients and servers or developing their own with all the crazy additional features they could imagine.

 

Now I have no idea how suitable the current software would be for such a project, but I can imagine that even a small move in that direction, such as allowing a third-party developper to make a Linux port of the client, would cause tremendous problems to BBO:

 

- My Linux client appears to send/receive junk to/from the server. Should I complain to BBO or to the BBO/Linux team? I have worked for Borland as a customer support engineer and a large fraction of the bug repports we received turned out to be bugs in Windows or in some 3rd party product with which our software was integrated by the customer.

 

- BBO wants to fase out deprecated protocol elements but it is unclear whether those elements are still needed by some Linux users.

 

- Some smart programmer builds a version of the client that supresses BBO's banner commercials. This costs BBO money.

 

- If the C/S communication protocol becomes publicly available, it will be easier for competitors to clone the server as well.

[Gerben42]

I for one think that Fred & Uday's position is clear and reasonable. If you want to pursue your quest to use BBO under Linux I suggest you do the following:

 

* Make it work (maybe push some Wine people or do it yourself, after all Wine and similar is open source).

 

* Create documentation on how people who are clueless about these things (like me, I have a Linux / DOS / Windows triple boot system but I have no idea how I would set up Wine to make a complex program like BBO run on it - I managed Minesweeper which was a major victory :)) can set it up.

 

* Put the documentation on a website and tell people about your website.

 

and refrain from doing the following:

 

* Asking BBO to do it for you.

[fred]

Hey Richard, Fred only said that reverse engineers are BSGs, not that all open source people are BSGs.

That is correct.

 

If people want to work on open source projects, that is their business and I have no doubt that many excellent and creative programs will eventually arise from such projects (though I do expect that most truly innovative software will continue to be developed in a "closed source" environment).

 

Similarly, if owners of closed source programs (like BBO) want their programs to remain that way, that is their business.

 

My problem is with the reverse engineers (who steal from those who refuse to give their blood willingly).

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

Now I have no idea how suitable the current software would be for such a project, but I can imagine that even a small move in that direction, such as allowing a third-party developper to make a Linux port of the client, would cause tremendous problems to BBO:

Definitely agree with you (both) on this...

 

While I'd prefer a regime under which third party clients are able to connect to BBO, I recognize that this is unhealty unless:

 

A. BBO Management agrees with this philosophy

B. Fred and Uday invest the effort of specifying a public interface

 

Sorry for attributing comments directed at reverse engineering with Open Source development. Was sloppy of me...

[fred]

When you characterize Open Source developers “parasites” and “blood sucking ghouls”, do you include yourself in that same category? Matt Clegg's OKBridge created the Online Bridge market. The company pioneered any number of common innovations (Windows interface, online VuGraph, ACBL affiliated tournaments). Bridge Base Online is very much a second mover which has displaced the original innovator. What do you think that Matt Clegg thinks about BBO and the free services which are competing against his own “pay to play” web site? BBO has certainly introduced a number of significant innovations above and beyond OKB's original product offerings. However, BBO started as a free site which cannibalized a commercial product.

I don't think this is a fair comparison, Richard, for several reasons:

 

- I did not reverse engineer OKB.

 

- An idea as vague and obvious as "online bridge game" is not subject to copyright. This is a good thing - otherwise there would be only one word processor program, for example, and the people who created this program would automatically have a lock on this market leaving them with little incentive to improve their product - consumers would suffer as a result.

 

- I intentionally tried to make BBO as different from OKB as possible. This is only partly because I thought I could do a better job. More significant, I would have had trouble looking in the mirror if the program I created was nothing more than a clone of someone else's creation.

 

If you have trouble believing this, I will give you one specific example:

 

My favorite thing about the OKB interface was the little picture of the duplicate board in the center of the table (which is used to display dealer, vul, and board number). I thought this was so clever and I knew I could not be comfortable if I included the same thing in the BBO interface. The graphic we use for this purpose is not as pretty or effective as OKB's picture of the duplicate board, but its use made it possible for me to sleep at night.

 

Obviously BBO's basic function is similar to that of OKB, but it is certainly not a ripoff of that product. I suspect even Matt Clegg would agree with this.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[hrothgar]

I don't think this is a fair comparison, Richard, for several reasons:

 

- I did not reverse engineer OKB.

Hi Fred

 

With respect to the "Linux Time" article... I mistakenly assumed that the comments that you made regarding reverse engineering were directed at Open Source development in general. I apologize for this. In my defense, I will note that many individuals and companies have launched publicity blitzes against Open Source citing a very similar line of argument. For example, Microsoft's Steve Ballmer refers to Open Source development as a cancer. Jim Allchin says its a "destroyer".

 

As I noted during the posting, I'm quite sure that BBO had a "Chinese Wall" with respect to the OKB code base. I also agree that the look and feel of the two products is quite different. Equally significant, I beleive that the same holds true in most cases where Open Source projects are cloning commercial soft (or, for that matter, when one commercial program is cloning another)

 

I apologize for the confusion...

[EdwardRF]

I am totally disappointed by the lack of knowledge of open source philosophy. And it is very obvious that the BBO is trying to run itself as a business rather than free bridge for everyone.

From the points given by fred, i can assume he never participated in any professional software developement. From the point of xtreme programming, a small closed group is one of the worst practice.

Without open source, the internet won't be developed so well. Commercial companies like Apple, Sun, IBM, all uses GCC as compiler, which is opensouce. I can 100% assure you that you've benefited from open source software one way or another.

I am not starting a war here, rather, i wish to alert everyone here to be aware of open source software. And please know that the "free" in free software is same as the "free" in free speech, but not the same as "free beer". Look at MySql, RedHat, Apache, who are running free software while earning big money.

And more IMPORTANTLY, i hope Micro$oft did not pay you to stop you from do a linux port.

Keep yourself close is never a good choice, just like china in the beginning of last century, it is just a metter of time to be opened, and look at the great fortune created after it has opened up her gate.

 

=================================================

To prevent yourself from maintaining 2 different source, you can choose some platform independent language like JAVA.

[inquiry]

I am totally disappointed by the lack of knowledge of open source philosophy. And it is very obvious that the BBO is trying to run itself as a business rather than free bridge for everyone.

  From the points given by fred, i can assume he never participated in any professional software developement. From the point of xtreme programming, a small closed group is one of the worst practice.

  Without open source, the internet won't be developed so well. Commercial companies like Apple, Sun, IBM, all uses GCC as compiler, which is opensouce. I can 100% assure you that you've benefited from open source software one way or another.

  I am not starting a war here, rather, i wish to alert everyone here to be aware of open source software. And please know that the "free" in free software is same as the "free" in free speech, but not the same as "free beer". Look at MySql, RedHat, Apache, who are running free software while earning big money.

  And more IMPORTANTLY, i hope Micro$oft did not pay you to stop you from do a linux port.

  Keep yourself close is never a good choice, just like china in the beginning of last century, it is just a metter of time to be opened, and look at the great fortune created after it has opened up her gate.

 

  =================================================

  To prevent yourself from maintaining 2 different source, you can choose some platform independent language like JAVA.

Hmm... not wanting to get into the religious war that exist between "open source zeolats" and all others... I have to address a few things in this post.

 

From the points given by fred, i can assume he never participated in any professional software developement

 

Erm. I would consider Fred's BBO project "professional" in every sence of the term, since it generates a nice income for not only himself but others as well. I would go so far as attribute his many commerical software products (Bridge Masters and the content from many others such as the Mike's 2/1 CD as excellent examples of professional too). So, clearly edward, you are WAY off here.

 

Fred has never said open source is a bad thing. Commercial companies like Apple, Sun, and IBM that you quote are making money off HARDWARE and SUPPORT services to the open source products you quote. That is, they leverage the work of others to improve their bottom line.. .which is to push their other products. In the case of BBO, the software IS THE PRODUCT. One would hope you could see the difference. I can.

 

Now lets compare "MySQL, RedHAT and Apache profit model from Free Source the BridgeBase model. We will start wtih RedHAT. RedHAT has thousands of volunteers working on "their" open source technology to compete with UNIX and Microsoft (and other Linux and I guess Apple too, who uses a similar OS now). They don't sell hardware, but they do have two primary products. 1) Subscription services (were uses get updates), and 2) Service revenue where they generate income in the form of consulting and engineering service as well as training and education. And Red Hat Linux, of course, is sold as an operating system itself (as if the Enterprise version) in numerous places. But the more people edit and change (and yes, improve) the Operating system, the more the need for subscription and support services.

 

A similar approach is taken by MySQL, who offer training courses and seminars around the country, as well as "certifications", consulting services and support services. Once again, harnesing the power of many developers and quick turn around provides profit for them (more updates, more features both make the product more desirable, but also pushes their training and certification and support "products"). Same for Apache (my favorite of the three companies, by the way). So in these cases, like in the open source model of the hardware vendors, there is a business model DRIVING the mutually benefitial interaction between the open source market and the "companies" you are listing.

 

What about in Fred's case? NetBridgeVu (the client software) and the underlying server IS THE PRODUCT that Fred is "selling." So if others got access to the "code" the kingdom would be challenged. Remember with this site first came on line, there were very few users. And yet with their current product, they have grown into a highly successful service. With the source code out, everyone with a internet site (and yes, access to the code), could create a competitive sight instantly. And other competitve sights that already exist could be improved overnight. The only arguement for a need for open source is so that Linux users could access the site more easily. But as Fred has pointed out, there is little business need in this. First, they can access the site nicely with Wine, second, there are truly too few of them without either dual boot machines or access to wine to be worry about from a business model.

 

No, open source approach is correct for some business models, the ones you highlighted being nice examples. For other business, like Fred's, it simply makes no sense.

 

Finally, I find the tone of your post unfair in another area. Fred's business model is more open source than any other gaming site. Fred makes it possible for people to play for free, while making it possible for "partners" to build on his service via private and public clubs, and via tournament, teaching tables, and selling professional services (lecture rooms, teaching tables, play-for-pay). Compare that with clubs like OKBridge, for instance.

 

Every 4 to 5 months, some open source person, who like you, seem to know only one way to spell microsoft, replacing the s with a dollar sign, take Fred to task for not giving away the keys to his business. And every time, Fred comes and patiently, if not forcable, describes why he will not do it. And predictably, everytime the champions of "information wants to be free" come back and tell him why he is so totally wrong.

 

I have some advice for all the "champions of freedom: who have chastised Fred for his decision. Rahter than come here and whine about it, go, create your own bridge sites. You don't need Fred to hold you hand. All you need is your obvious programming skills, your free linux and apache and GCC compliers. After all, we all know each deal is only 52 cards, and each hand only gets 13 cards, and bidding can't go past 7NT (well doubled and redoubled) and the auction ends after the first call (pass or bid) with three passes consecutive passes.

 

BTW, I speak only for myself, not BBO or anyone else. We call this free speach.

 

Ben

[fred]

I am totally disappointed by the lack of knowledge of open source philosophy. And it is very obvious that the BBO is trying to run itself as a business rather than free bridge for everyone.

Sorry to disappoint you.

 

What you think is "obvious" happens to be wrong.

 

Of course we are trying to run ourselves as a business. We are a business.

 

However, part of our business is to offer free bridge for everyone. If you hate Microsoft so much that you are unwilling to run BBO on Linux under WINE, that is your problem. It would be insane for us to make business decisions in order in order to cater to such people.

 

Of course we recongize the value of open source programs like gcc (which we use to compile the BBO server), but what does this have to do with anything?

 

You make assertions that closed is bad and open in good based on theories of "xtreme programming" and the like, but take a look at the real world. BBO is closed, but BBO is good and BBO is successful. To the best of my knowledge, the one and only open source online bridge service (something called "Floater") is neither good nor successful.

 

I am not sure if you are serious when you suggest that Microsoft might have actually paid us money to stay away from Linux. I would have hoped that you would have noticed that my previous post was a lot more honest and open than you might expect from a businessman explaining his company's policies in a sensitive area. If one of the reasons for our Linux policy was payment from Microsoft, I would have mentioned this.

 

However, in the unlikely (impossible?) event that Microsoft did offer us enough money to do this (or offered to buy our company for enough money), I would certainly consider taking it. Believe it or not, I do have some principles and would care about the details of such an arrangement (For example, I might insist that BBO remain free, that it continue to be usuable under WINE, and that I continue to be allowed to work on improving the program). That being said, the decisions we make will be strongly influenced by what is good for our business and good for ourselves personally.

 

Perhaps you should start referring to my company as Bridge Ba$e. Your mocking $ is Micro$oft has the opposite of its intended effect on me. The $ is a sign of success. I am not ashamed to admit that I am successful and that money is important to me. In fact, I am proud of it. I am also proud of the fact that I care about bridge and that I have made positive contributions to the game.

 

There is no contradiction here. It is possible to be concerned about business and bridge at the same time and I believe we are succeeding in both areas.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Nadreck]

Hi

 

This thread seems to be going down the same silly path that a similar thread on the rec.bridge newsgroup did.

 

Philosophical debates about Open source etc are irrelevent.

 

The basic fact is that BBO is a fine piece of software developed mostly as a labor of love by Fred and his team that we all get to enjoy for free. The software is created and maintained by him and he has no obligation, requirement or need to share or disclose how it works.

 

Fred has kind enough to explain the reasons why he is not interested in being involved in any Linux port and these should be accepted and respected. Even the most rabid linux fan should be able to respect someones right to choose what they spend their time doing.

 

Lets just let Fred and his team get on with doing what he seems to enjoy doing which is to develop and improve the software. :)

[mycroft]

I believe that some reverse engineering projects are necessary and of ultimate good. These come in two flavours:

 

1) the original company is defunct, and a very good product is abandoned. Continued support for the (usually small) client base frequently requires a reverse-engineered port. Open source development of that port (because the developers usually come from the client base that has just been abandoned) tends to work well here.

 

2) the original company is attempting to use the protocol to discourage competition in a related field (microsoft is the classic example of this, but printer (ink cartridges) and products requiring remotes (garage doors, VCRs) are also high-profile examples). That is a legitimate, if underhanded business tactic (if you're not a monopoly or trying to misuse the DMCA), but I see nothing wrong with BSGs going after BSGs.

 

3 (sorta)) reverse engineering security protocols for research and warning purposes seems to me to be a good and valid exercise, no matter how annoying it is to the developer of that protocol. If the white-hat cryptanalysts aren't there, the black-hat brigade certainly are.

 

However, none of this applies to Fred and BBO. He chose to write in a Windows-only platform originally (not my choice, but his program is much more successful than any of mine). He chooses neither to port to a platform-independent framework, nor create and support multiple operating systems. Fine. However, he has helped in the past to remove the blocks from operation in Linux under WINE, continues to help when new bugs in that operation occur, and has investigated (and will freely explain) support for Macintoshes (which unfortunately does require a paid-for client). I am sure that if another platform wanted help with that kind of a port, Fred would give it willingly (as long as it wasn't a month of his time or the like, or he was asked to find the problems). In particular, he is not releasing BBO clients with the "It's not done until Lotus won't run" philosophy, deliberately breaking the emulation that does exist.

 

I am not a Linux zealot, but I disapprove of most of Microsoft's software and business practices (their hardware is almost univerally better than average, however). I approve of WINE, and support Cygwin and Crossover, because of what Microsoft has done to tie everything they do to a 'migrating to Windows is a one-way only operation, and now we've caught you in the $500/3 years/machine upgrade cycle' (in at least three cases, violating unfair trading statutes). But I don't think that BBO-Linux is in the same category as SaMBa or Mozilla supporting HTML "extensions" or the Kerberos packagers creating support for Microsoft's "embrace and extend" of that package.

 

Michael.

[ochinko]

Quite an interesting topic. What I didn't understand was the part about reverse engineering being considered parasitism by Fred.

 

If I were to write a hand viewer, I'd like to include as many formats for bridge notation as possible. Not all of them are made public, so I'd have to look inside files in non-published formats in order to parse them right. I'd have to get them right by trial and error. This is something of a reverse engineering.

 

Next, if I had the time and motivation, I could write a client program that connects to a server. Since the network protocols are unpublished too, I'd have to log the traffic between the client and the server, analyze it, and reimplement it many times for all the bridge servers that are there, since they all use their own protocols. Would Fred consider me a parasite if I do that? Would others?

[fred]

Quite an interesting topic. What I didn't understand was the part about reverse engineering being considered parasitism by Fred.

 

If I were to write a hand viewer, I'd like to include as many formats for bridge notation as possible. Not all of them are made public, so I'd have to look inside files in non-published formats in order to parse them right. I'd have to get them right by trial and error. This is something of a reverse engineering.

 

Next, if I had the time and motivation, I could write a client program that connects to a server. Since the network protocols are unpublished too, I'd have to log the traffic between the client and the server, analyze it, and reimplement it many times for all the bridge servers that are there, since they all use their own protocols. Would Fred consider me a parasite if I do that? Would others?

In my view, it is wrong from a moral point of view to write a program that connects to a server if the people who own that server do not wish you to do that.

 

Similarly:

 

It is wrong to enter a person's house if you have been asked to stay away.

 

It is wrong to make photocopies of a book and to give copies to your friends (unless the author agrees).

 

It is wrong to build (or buy or use) a device that allows you to steal television signals that you would normally have to pay for.

 

Such actions also happen to be illegal in most of the world, but that is not really the point. The point is that, in many ways, intellectual property is like "real" property. The people who own it have the right to ask others not to tresspass, copy, or steal from them.

 

The people who do not respect the wishes and rights of the creators are not only hurting the creators. Ultimately everyone gets hurt - many creators will lose their incentive to innovate if their innovations are stolen (either because of the emotional distress that such actions cause or because it is no longer possible to make a living as a result).

 

I appreciate the polite tone of your e-mail and I am therefore hesitant to insult you, but since you asked and since the insult that follows is only hypotethical: Yes, I would consider you a parasite if you wrote a client that connected OUR server without our permission.

 

Most likely I am going to stop posting to these threads. To me the "right" answers to these questions are obvious and I have tried to state the case for what I believe to be "right" as clearly as I can. Those of you who still don't see it probably do not want to see it.

 

Besides that, I suspect that most of our members would prefer that I spend my time working on improving the software.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[KiwiBridge]

Besides that, I suspect that most of our members would prefer that I spend my time working on improving the software.

 

Yes Fred, I suspect 99.9% of BridgeBase members totally agree. For those of you with this anti-Windows plague, I say "get a life". Look who TIME chose as people of the year, and Bill is a bridge player too.

[ochinko]

Many thanks for your answer, Fred. I don't know whether I am on the same wavelength (got to think and read more about these issues) but it was important for me to know your opinion because of the respect I have for your work, achievements, and general personality.

 

Now, as big a fan of Free Software I am, I don't think "Free" should be compulsory. Every author has the right to put whatever license he thinks fits best to his product, otherwise where is the freedom? If I had built a business around BBO, I too would probably never risk opening its source.

 

I hope your time on this thread won't be wasted, other people will read it, understand your concerns, and hopefully lessen the pressure for you to open the source. Your stance was not "obvious" to me, so there is a chance that it is now more obvious to others too.

 

Personally, the WINE compatibility suits me fine today. There is only the danger for tomorrow. You could win the lottery <_< , and lose interest in BBO. Now where will we all be? You should realise that there are no good Free or Open Source bridge software products simply because bridge is (unfortunately) not popular enough.

 

Petko Boukov

Sofia, Bulgaria