Regarding a rule (openly available files)

[Aitbek Myrzakhmet]

Hello,

I got a question regarding the rule

"""Links where files can be downloaded:
Executables and documented source code of (de)compressor and all other relevant files."""

that is here: http://prize.hutter1.net/hrules.htm#rules

under "Participation" headline.

Can I participate and be egligible for prize witout posting the source code?Because that code gives a full idea of how my (de)compressor algortihm works. And I want to imporve it further and beat my own performance, myself. Otherwise, anyone quicker than me will get the next prize.

PS: My submission will ba a self contained executable that just creates a file identical to "enwik8".

Thank you.

[Matt Mahoney]

No, source code is required.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Hutter Prize" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to hutter-prize...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to hutter...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/hutter-prize.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Mirek Kaim]

one would imagine that making such a change to the rules would be widely announced on the main page. instead, the rules were edited quietly, with no mention of previous situation.

personally, i would consider the source code requirement to be against the spirit of this competition. it's difficult enough as it is, if not impossible, to prevent reverse engineering.

http://web.archive.org/web/20170505205326/http://prize.hutter1.net/hrules.htm

with current rules, i doubt you can expect any breakthrough to take place here. sad, really. what's next? only MIT and GPL licensed code allowed? or is it possible to send the code privately to the prize committee only? if so, will you sign an NDA? no?

TL;DR: what do you need the source code for, if it's perfectly possible to check if the code is doing any cheating whatsoever by monitoring it with external software?

don't get me wrong, i post my own code on github (i'm not exactly a fan of GPL though), but this is not the place. also, being sneaky about it is wrong on so many levels i won't even go into that.

[James Bowery]

Is there some reason you were unable to read Matt's response of July 9?

On Monday, July 9, 2018 at 8:42:47 PM UTC-5, Matt Mahoney wrote:

> No, source code is required.

If so, perhaps we need to migrate to another discussion platform than Google Groups.

PS:  I realize that, although the "Rules" do not specify one must submit source code, the later section titled "Participation" contains a potentially misleading wording. 
Perhaps "Executables and optional files such as documented source code of (de)compressor and all other relevant files." would avoid this kind of confusion.  But I'm still concerned about the failure of Google Groups to deliver Matt's clear and succinct statement.

[Mirek Kaim]

the only confusing thing here is your reply.

i've replied to Matt's statement that the source code is required - it wasn't before, as proven. the change wasn't announced, CURRENT page for the prize sounds misleading (main page talks about executable, whereas rules were changed so that source code is no longer optional). why now? because i wasn't subscribed to this mailing list before. i was taking a look now and then, and Matt's post grabbed my attention.

so if current participation section contains misleading wording, then what about Matt's post? there's a coma in that sentence. Matt says source code is required, rules page - participation section, to be precise - was changed before may and june last year, and it wasn't even edited like the rules section, it was just quietly changed like the source code was never optional in the first place. all that while the main page still talks about executables only.

that's wrong.

unless you're saying that the source code was required before - but "highly appreciated" (the wording from the rules page, participation section, from before the change) implies "not required".

did Alex submit his source code? because based on the public posts i saw, he didn't.

[James Bowery]

I read Matt's response as: "No source code is required." rather than "No, source code is required."    Your reading was correct but Matt's punctuation was wrong.  Matt can correct me if I'm wrong.

My apologies.  I misread it because this question has come up so many times and been answered so many times as "No source code is required." that I reflexively elided the comma.  It really should be in the FAQ as "No source code is required."