Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 21:46:30 02/15/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2005 at 00:39:08, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 16, 2005 at 00:13:53, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On February 15, 2005 at 23:26:12, Uri Blass 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. >>>> >>>>So, in all the cases where you stated that you took crafty's code and modifed >>>>potions of it, it is considered a clone. >>>> >>>>Let me go back to my novel example: >>>> >>>>Assuming someone has written a 12-chapter novel. You then went and copied the >>>>1st chapter, and then with your own ideas, you wrote chapters 2 to 12 which is >>>>your very own original story. Can you submit this new novel to a publisher and >>>>claim it as your own work? >>>> >>>>--- >>> >>>The only simple solution is to change the rules and decide that everything is >>>allowed here and every code that is published is simply the public domain >>>and you cannot publish code without making it the public domain. >> >>Will this rule also need to be applied to books and magazine articles? > >yes > >The first word of a book may be the same as another book with no problem. >The same for the first 2 words. > >I do not see a simple solution to the question what is the minimal number of >words that it is not allowed so the only way to have clear rules is to decide >that every book that is published is the public domain and everyone can copy it >and sell it. >> >>>A lot of chess programs copied something from another program(even if it is only >>>a function to check the time in the clock) and by your definition I am afraid >>>that more than 90% of the programs are clones but I do not think that they will >>>be considered as clones by most people. >>> >>>All the discussion pushes me to think that maybe the simple solution is the best >>>inspite of the disadvantages of it. >>>I do not like a situation when it is not clear what is legal and what is >>>illegal. >> >>I think it is not difficult to get permission to use something. >> >>I think it is not difficult to rewrite most chess algorithms from first >>principles. >> >>I think it is not difficult to give credit to the original authors. > >The problem is that it is difficult to know what is allowed by the rules and >when there are enough programmers 2 people may even write almost the same code >to do the same task independently. If they have done this (and -- indeed -- it happens all the time) then they have committed no wrong. The only way to prevent someone from using the same algorithm as the one that you are using is to: 1. Invent it 2. Patent it Fortunately, nobody does that in computer chess. I will say (further) if you read someone's algorithm and understand how it works and then write one that does the same thing that is not wrong. There is a difficult balance between choosing open source and not open source. There is a difficult balance between deciding to give away: 1. Time/effort helping someone else 2. Executables/data 3. Source code 4. Algorithm descriptions 5. Hints about what you do or not. I think it is always the programmer's choice. There is always an upside to every choice and there is always a downside. So the programmer should choose the path to maximize their own happiness.
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.