Author: John Merlino
Date: 18:44:38 02/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On February 17, 2005 at 19:57:01, Russell Reagan wrote:
>On February 17, 2005 at 15:19:33, John Merlino wrote:
>
>>On February 16, 2005 at 13:32:51, Russell Reagan wrote:
>>
>>>On February 16, 2005 at 12:11:43, John Merlino wrote:
>>>
>>>>On February 16, 2005 at 05:19:03, Russell Reagan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On February 15, 2005 at 19:05:35, John Merlino wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>But let's say that an author took TSCP, modified it to some degree and gave Tom
>>>>>>credit. Even though you do not call that a clone...
>>>>>
>>>>>That is absolutely a clone, but it's not a bad thing to be a clone in this case.
>>>>>I don't think defining the word "clone" is the real issue, as it does not have
>>>>>to imply negativity.
>>>>
>>>>Not saying that you're wrong about that, but you're the first person I've ever
>>>>heard say that the word "clone" isn't necessarily bad.
>>>>
>>>>jm
>>>
>>>
>>>I doubt I'm the first person you've heard express this idea. There are at least
>>>349 Linux clones. At least 348 of these are clones. You can call them
>>>'distributions' or 'clones', but either word implies that they borrowed source
>>>code in this case. However, a clone doesn't even have to imply borrowed source
>>>code. There are probably 10,000 Tetris clones, and probably zero of them
>>>borrowed source code from the original. In Linux there are clones for virtually
>>>any Windows program (ex. Open Office/MS Office, Gaim/AOL Instant Messenger,
>>>GIMP/Adobe Photoshop, KDevelop/MS Visual Studio, and so on).
>>
>>Clarification: I meant "clone" in the sense of applying the word to a chess
>>engine.
>>
>>jm
>
>How is it applied differently to a chess engine than it is to, say, Linux? Or
>any other open source project? I'm not just being disagreeable. You asked
>multiple questions about specific modifications ("What if I change everything
>but the eval?", and so on). I don't think those details matter nearly as much as
>honesty and (as Dann said) rights.
Fair enough. And that seems to be the general opinion and what the topic evolved
into. Most people seemed to agree that, even if all that remained was one small
piece of the original engine's "personality" (as I think Bob put it -- any
portion of the engine that produces a unique and correct result), you were a
clone.
Fine by me....
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.