Author: John Merlino
Date: 21:32:31 02/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2005 at 23:48:32, Daniel Shawul wrote: >On February 16, 2005 at 18:15:04, John Merlino wrote: > >>Many thanks to all who contributed to this discussion. As I suspected, when all >>is said and done there appears to be very little distance between the most >>relaxed and the most stringent definitions of "clone". >> >>It was great to read all of your thoughts, for which I am very appreciative! >> >>Many thanks again! >> >>jm > >i am not against this discussion at all, infact i like it. >Now that all the ideas are brought up,would you please >wrap up what the most accepted defintion is. >daniel It appears that the most accepted definition simply involves the two requirements of getting permission to reuse code and giving credit where credit is due. If the author of a chess engine does this, then nobody has the right to complain, since everything is out in the open. Of course, certain events/tournaments may require that engines be "original work", or use some other term that is potentially vague, and these events may have completely different definitions of what "original work" means. The point of my discussion was to just test the ethical waters, and get an idea of where our community stood on the issue. jm
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.