Mersenne: Re: poaching

[EWMAYER]

Ah, nothing to get one's sluggish blood moving than a juicy discussion about
poaching and other number-theoretic high crimes.

Spike66 (Hiya, Spike!) wrote

>Please, fellow math lovers, do let us get
>things in the proper perspective here.  GIMPS
>is just for fun.

Yes, but like most other recreations, it can quickly become less
so if someone doesn't play by the rules. "Hey, Kasparov - chess
is just for fun, so who cares if castled my King while he was
in check? You need to lighten up, buddy..."


Paul Missman wrote:

>Neither GIMPS or Primenet have any license to these numbers, nor are they
>the only entities testing large numbers for primality.

True, but if you use GIMPS software, you agree to play by the (in my
mind quite reasonable) rules. If you find those rules too constraining,
you can either (a) not use the software, or (b) waive your right to
claim any monetary reward (and possibly discoverer credit) should you
happen to find a prime using said software. It's quite simple, really -
if you can't play nicely with our software, then write your own.
Even "free" software may have certain conditions of use - you couldn't
just rip off GIMPS software for your company (let's call it PrimeWare)
and try to make money off it that way, either. You're absolutely right,
the numbers themselves are free for all to do with as they please. The
software, however, is not.

>If my sister reads from her math book a method of testing large primes,
>knows nothing of Primenet or GIMPS, tests the numbers on her home computer,
>and finds a large prime, she is gonna publish it.

...which would require her to make available the software she used
to discover the prime. If she's such a talented programmer that she
used her own, bully for her. If not, see my previous point.

Cheers,
-Ernst,
who actually *did* write his own Mersenne-testing software, uses it a lot,
and *still* doesn't poach.