Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 09:10:09 02/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2004 at 12:04:02, Vincent Diepeveen 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. > >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). "Creative rights" are not the issue here, for me. Just trying to control the out-of-sight cloning problems that have abounded the past few years. I don't mind anybody using my ideas. But I don't want source code copied with the goal of creating a "unique program" that really "isn't". > >>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.