Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:10:53 02/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2004 at 14:45:36, Dann Corbit wrote: >On February 15, 2004 at 14:36:56, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On February 15, 2004 at 13:41:42, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On February 15, 2004 at 13:29:16, Dann Corbit 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. >>>> >>>>There are more reasons that that one routine. Several routines are similar. He >>>>also used some ideas from eval that are found only in crafty. For instance, he >>>>had a stonewall detection. The only other program I ever saw with stonewall >>>>detection was crafty. >>>> >>>>There is no standard for: >>>>"This is a clone" >>>>or >>>>"This is not a clone" >>> >>>I believe that there are some standards. >>> >>>Suppose that a strong program with the same similiarity to Crafty becomes >>>commercial and the author does not hide the similiarity and even share the >>>similiar code that it has to crafty. >>> >>>I believe based on your descreption that if Hyatt go to court and sue the >>>programmer then it is clear that the court is going to decide against him. >>> >>>> >>>>It is clear to me that if you use ideas from someone else and they challenge you >>>>as to cloning, then you may have a big problem to sort it out. >>> >>>I use alphabeta >>>I use null move >>> >>>What other people can do against me? >> >> >>This is called a "strawman" argument. Nobody is claiming that or arguing from >>that perspective. The point here is _source code_. Do you think it ok to >>borrow a chapter from a book, change the main character's name, and sell it as >>your own? Copyright law does _not_ say it is ok. Nor is it ok to take >>thousands of lines of code from Crafty, change a few variable names, and then >>call it a new program. >> >>I think it is great if someone looks at the source, reads the comments, gets >>some ideas they like and implement them. Much of the _original_ Crafty design >>came right from the "Chess Skill in Man and Machine" book chapter on chess 4.0. >>But I copied _no_ source since none was given. Ideas are ok to copy. But _not_ >>thousands of lines of source. >> >>That is the point here, it keeps getting lost in all the minutia... >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Therefore, if >>>>someone has an idea you want to use, I think the only wise course is to send an >>>>email and ask if you can use the idea. >>> >>>I think that it is absurd. >> >>I think both of you are absurd here, because you are arguing a point of view >>that nobody holds. If you can't see the difference between copying an idea and >>copying an actual source program, perhaps there is nothing more to say? > >I think that it is an honest difference of opinion. I also do see where you are >coming from. I also understand your frustration at many of the blatant crafty >rip-offs. It makes perfect sense to me for you to put your foot down and holler >"ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!" > >But I think Daniel Shawul may be bearing the brunt of the mistakes of others. >In any case, we all agree that it was a terrible oversight not to mention the >use of crafty ideas in his program. He is doing a complete rewrite to 0x88 (and >in fact has already accomplished it). So I think it would be nice to let >bygones be bygones and forget the whole matter. > >I still have great respect for all of the parties involved and I think it would >be nice to have everyone forgive all of the others. I don't have anything to "forgive". I simply answered a question with my opinion. I don't hold anything against anyone here. I simply don't like calling the current "DanChess" a "unique chess program". Any newcomer is going to have to tolerate a certain amount of microscopic examination, for obvious reasons... Too many past examples to just say "OK".. Otherwise our chess events become meaningless... > > >>>Do I need to ask people if I am allowed to use null move pruning? >>>What in case that I think independtly about an idea that other people use in >>>their soutce code and I did not read the source code? >>> >>> >>>Uri
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.