Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 15:31:17 04/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 28, 2002 at 14:41:59, Michael Williams wrote:
>On April 28, 2002 at 14:06:25, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On April 28, 2002 at 11:37:40, stuart taylor wrote:
>>
>>>On April 28, 2002 at 11:30:51, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>
>>>>On April 28, 2002 at 11:17:53, Roy Eassa wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On April 28, 2002 at 11:14:42, Joseph Merolle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I was looking at the ssdf and seen Fritz 1 was 1941 and thought to myself this
>>>>>>would make a great engine to play games against. I was wondering if it would
>>>>>>work in the Fritz 7 gui stable. My next question is if someone emails me the
>>>>>>engine would it ask for the CD when pulling up the engine? If the answer is no
>>>>>>would someone be so kind to email it to me at josemer@regent.edu. (unziped
>>>>>>please i dont know how to unzip) I would buy it but not even chessbase offers
>>>>>>it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Regards Joseph
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I have my original copy somewhere. It came on diskette (not CD) and was called
>>>>>(at least in the USA) "KnightStalker".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Two points:
>>>>
>>>>1) it is 1941 SSDF elo on a 486-33MHz. Are you using a 486-33MHz? If not,
>>>>chances are that Fritz 1.0 running on your computer would be *much* stronger
>>>>than that (above 2300 elo, easily).
>>>>
>>>>2) you are asking for an illegal copy. Please don't do that here.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Christophe
>>>Do programs remain illegal so long after they are extinct (no mention of it in
>>>ssdf, as far as I remember)?
>>>S.Taylor
>>
>>
>>
>>I don't understand why you ask.
>>
>>The right question to ask is: "does a commercial program EVER fall in public
>>domain, when, and for what reason?".
>>
>>Is it legal to steal your car if you have not claimed ownership on it for more
>>than 2 weeks for example?
>>
>
>Interesting that you chose the period of 2 weeks. You are probably familiar
>with the legal principle of adverse possession (or more commonly, squatter's
>rights) where in some jurisdictions, if property is not used or occupied for
>15-20 years, the current user retains rights. I realize that this is not the
>situation here, just pointing out something interesting...
I find this law stupid. If ownership as a concept has to be challenged, then it
should be challenged in a more global way, or not be challenged at all. The
15-20 years figure comes out of nowhere.
I also have some doubts about intellectual ownership, but I guess that we will
need much more time (maybe one more century) in order to figure out if this
concept is good or not.
Christophe
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.