Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: definition of clones: Danchess an Crafty

Author: Robert Hyatt

Date: 11:31:35 02/15/04

Go up one level in this thread


On February 15, 2004 at 13:53:33, Bob Durrett wrote:

>On February 15, 2004 at 13:24:54, Uri Blass wrote:
>
>>I understood from the winboard forum that Bob considers DanChess as a crafty
>>clone and the question is what is the definition of a clone.
>>
>>I remember from slater's post in this forum that if most of the code is
>>different you cannot win in court by complaining that it is a clone.
>>
>>I understood from Dann's post that only 30% of the code of DanChess is
>>similiar(that does not mean the same as Crafty).
>>
>>Dann Corbit posted in the winboard forum the SEE function of Danchess that is
>>similiar to Crafty.
>>I wonder if it is really the main reason that Bob considers Danchess as a clone
>>or only one of the reasons.
>>
>>Uri
>
>Can you patent or copyright an algorithm????

Yes and No.  You can patent an algorithm.  It has been done.  IE there is an
existing patent for the algorithm to transpose music from one key to another.
Makes no sense, but that isn't the issue.

No to the algorithm.

Buy my position here is that we are talking about source code, and copying that
is both a violation of copyright and is also called "plagiarism" at any
university in the USA.

>
>Bob D.



This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.