Author: Uri Blass
Date: 21:43:26 02/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2005 at 00:25:54, Pallav Nawani wrote: >On February 15, 2005 at 21:49:45, Lance Perkins wrote: > >>Consider this scenario: >> >>You saw someone else's code, then you went out and wrote your own code, which >>ended up to be like the other code. >> >>Even in this scenario, you could be violating the copyright of the other code. >> >>The only way around this is with the 'clean room' approach. If you want to make >>a similar or compatible code, you should have not seen the other person's code. >>Instead, somebody else would see it, describe to you what it does, then you go >>and write the code. > >This is no different from the first case you have mentioned. Important are >ideas, not code. Code is just an implementation. Whether you get the idea >directly from looking the code, or whether you get it indirectly how does it >matter? Unless, of course you _copy the implementation_. If you look at >somebody's implementation and then go and write your own, assuming that it is >not word by word copying and just changing the variable names, it is not a >clone. At least not by my definition. The problem is that 2 people who do the same implementation may use the same structure except different name for variables. Probability is very small but it is not impossible. I do not like accusing somebody of cloning when he is not quilty(even if the probability is small) so the only solution is to allow everything. Uri 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.