Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: definition of clones: Danchess an Crafty

Author: Dann Corbit

Date: 10:57:05 02/16/04

Go up one level in this thread


On February 16, 2004 at 12:26:49, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:

>On February 16, 2004 at 12:10:09, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>
>>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".
>
>A small courtcase will ensure you can demand the source code to be published.
>This is a very easy thing to do. Also demand money in case he doesn't quickly
>apply to the demands to publish the source code.

He already provided the source code to Dr. Hyatt (at my request to Daniel
Shawul.)  I thought that it would remove all doubts as to whether the program
was a clone.  Apparently, the delivery of the code did not produce the effect
that I thought it would.




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.