Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 09:04:02 02/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
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. Slate is wrong. Even if 5% of the code is similar you have a major problem. I hope you realize that the SCO claims go about less 5% of the total code. It is trivial that if this gets proven, that the owner of that code can ask major money and will get so. In case of SCO the dispute is therefore not only how many lines are similar, but especially 'who owns what'. In this case 'who owns what' is very clear. So if then the statement is that 30% of the code is similar, then this courtcase will be less than 30 minutes to decide that Hyatt owns that program more or less. >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. Bob is correct. Legally, juridically, and also practically. Not to mention that Bob has the creative rights also (hope i did translate that correct). >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.