Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 17:35:48 02/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2005 at 20:28:47, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 15, 2005 at 19:31:58, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On February 15, 2005 at 18:38:43, John Merlino wrote: >> >>>I'm not trying to start a brutally long thread here, but I'm just curious about >>>how people feel about a particularly touchy subject -- clones. What, in your >>>mind, would lead you to the conclusion that an engine is a clone? >>> >>>Let's forget trying to find ways to PROVE that a clone is a clone; I'm just >>>trying to define one. For the sake of argument, assume that the author of this >>>engine in question tells you exactly what he did and did not do, and you must >>>decide whether to call it a clone or not. >>> >>>Here are some hypothetical questions to start the debate: >>> >>>If the author took Crafty and completely rewrote the evaluation code and nothing >>>else, would it be a clone? >> >>Yes. If you violate the rules of the software agreement, it is clearly a clone. >> >>>How about if the author rewrote the evaluation code and search algorithm only, >>>but left the hashing code, et. al.? >> >>Clone. >> >>>How about if the author rewrote everything EXCEPT for the evaluation? >> >>Clone. >> >>>How about if the author rewrote everything EXCEPT for Crafty's evaluation of >>>passed pawns? >> >>Clone. >> >>>I think you can see where I'm driving. Obviously, many engine authors have >>>studied Crafty and other engines whose authors have graciously provided their >>>source code. But, for an engine to not be considered a clone, does it have to be >>>absolutely 100% the work of the author? (Forget about Nalimov's EGTB probing >>>code and any other code that can be used with permission). >>> >>>Many thanks in advance for your thoughts, >>> >>>jm (who's just preparing for any eventuality during his upcoming stint as >>>moderator :-) >> >>If there is one single line of Crafty code used without permission or >>acknowledgement then it is a clone. > >No >There can be one single line even by accident. >one line from Crafty's code is >int phase; > >You cannot blame every program that include this line to be a crafty clone. That is true. And the legal definition actually has some certain standard for the number of lines that read exactly the same. But I do not know what it is exactly. I meant that (in my opinion) if you borrow something, you must give credit, even if you change it. No matter how small the thing you borrowed was. Now, if I should write a quicksort routine, and you should write a quicksort routine, and everyone in here should write a quicksort routine, some of them will be line by line identical because it is a simple algorithm. Nobody cloned anybody. But if I write one and you look at it and type out the same thing, then that is a clone. I guess it boils down to right and wrong and credit where credit is due. Just like academic stuff, what is plaguarism? It is taking ideas without permission -- or using almost all of a work and changing little teeny bits of it and then calling it your own. If I quote a sentence and give credit -- that's fair use. I don't think the author can prevent it even if he does not like me. But if I use large passages without permission or if I use even small passages and do not give credit then clearly I have done something wrong. It is just like that with software as well. IMO-YMMV. P.S. I'm not a lawyer, so anything construed as legal advice here is worth exactly what you paid for it.
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.