> >The point here is
> >that, if I can freely download a program & use it to check Mersenne
> >numbers in the 10 million digit range, why should I bother to
> >contribute to a cooperative project if, by doing so, I'm going to
> >have to give up almost all the prize if I get lucky?
>
> We didn't have this problem when there was no prize. Can't we simply
> promote it as a $10,000 prize, not a $100,000 prize?
There is a problem though. Neither GIMPS nor Primenet have *any* legal
claim for any prize for any discovery made using Prime95/NTPrime/mprime, or
any code modified and compiled that was based on George's code. Let's face
it, there is nothing stipulated in the use of any of those programs, or the
use of Primenet as a coordinator, that implies in any way shape or form that
they would legally be entitled to any prize money at all.
I don't know if that's fair or not, I won't get into that. But the
discoverer of a prime found using GIMPS and/or Primenet would receive all
the money him/herself and then it's up to him/her what to do with it;
whether sharing some with George/Scott is something they would do is
entirely up to them.
Unless George/Scott set some legal mumbo jumbo that ties into use of the
program/source/services, they're simply not "entitled" to any prize money.
For the record, if I won some prize money, you bet I'd want to feed some
back to George/Scott for their excellent efforts and to promote further
advancements. After all, that is the intent of the EFF prizes. But would I
be required to by law? No.
> My counter-argument is Distributed.net. They are going for the
> US$10,000 offered by RSA Labs.
> http://www.distributed.net/rc5
> 10% of that will go to the winner. And I *think* they are bigger
> than GIMPS. S@H is much bigger.
I would imagine that the way they dole out the prize money is because use of
their software implies agreement with certain terms, i.e. that you agree
with the prize money disbursement outline. Otherwise, they'd be in the same
boat since the prize money is actually offered by RSA. Any bozo could write
their own program (well, not any bozo) and hope to find the key, getting all
$10K, but if you use the distributed.net software and database, you're
agreeing to a software license of sorts that spells out certain things.
GIMPS/Primenet doesn't have any such thing.
And it was mentioned before...if George and/or Scott setup such a legal
contract regarding software usage, there probably would be people writing
their own software, hoping to get the big cash all to themselves. And the
whole effort of coordinating who works on what exponents could get messy if
Scott says that using his Primenet database to check out/in numbers means
you agree to share prize money with him. People will start grabbing their
own numbers or setting up competing databases of their own or who knows
what.
I vote for freeware, free usage of Primenet, and just *hope* that any winner
of big cash will do the honorable thing and recognize, monetarily, the
efforts that George and Scott put into all of this.
And again, the first deca-mega-digit prime may not be a Mersenne
anyway...who can say? :-)
> It might be years before the range has been completely checked.
> Double checked? What's the phrase? "a sticky wicket"?
That reminds me, I was on vacation the past couple weeks and I ate at "The
Sticky Wicket" in Victoria, BC. If you're there, do go there...yummy!
> "individual or group". It seems clear to me that the award should
> go to the group, since this is not an individual effort. I think
> eff.org was very deliberate in their language.
If that's the case, it is up to that "group" to decide, in some legally
binding way, how prize money is disbursed. I suppose it's too late to worry
about such things now, since the $50K prize-winner has been found, but it's
something to think about, if we choose to go down that perilous road,
sometime before the $100K winner becomes imminent.
As such, I think the EFF would have to award the money solely to the
individual since no prior stipulations existed between him and George/Scott
on how the money would be split.
> >As a Mersenne prime discoverer it would appear that I would be on the
> panel(s)
> >that have been suggested, and my vote goes to allowing the
> discoverer to keep
> >it and do what their conscience tells them is the right thing to do.
>
> Do you get one vote, or 1/2? Do I split my vote with Walt Colquitt?
> Can Walt delegate his half to me? Does Alex Hurwitz get two? How many
> votes does George Woltman get? Landon Noll is disqualified. Does
> Arial Glenn get his vote(s)? Vote by majority or plurality? What
> a mess.
I agree also...like I mentioned above, setting up legalities will only
muddle the entire issue and give rise to competing databases and programs.
Not that competition is bad, but it will only add to the headaches of
coordinating the testing of all exponents, in my opinion. And that's the
point...testing all exponents in an orderly fashion, not winning "lotsa
money". We need to stay focused, yes? I'd hope that George and Scott
continue in their efforts even if they don't get a share of any prize money.
After all, they've done all of this for so long *without* the added "carrot
on a stick" that the EFF dangled in front of us all. Their "carrot on a
stick", prior to the EFF's involvement, has been (I hope) to systematically,
and effectively, test all exponents for Mersenne primality, end of sentence.
Don't let that change now.
Just my $0.02 worth (of course anyone who disagrees with me will be shot!)
:-)
Aaron
_________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
Mersenne Prime FAQ -- http://www.tasam.com/~lrwiman/FAQ-mers
