Author: KarinsDad
Date: 07:24:49 01/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 1999 at 08:46:51, Fernando Villegas wrote: >Hi both: >Well, you ask me a document or fact of any kind about Bob willingness, about his >attitude respect Crafty. Simple: just take a look at the posts he has done about >this issue. Sorry, I am not going to do the search for you, as maybe I should: >no time for that. But If you can put faith in my memory and good will, what Bob >has said is that the very nature of his Crafty proyect is to live it open to use >and be changed or altered from any person interested and he only ask to receive >a feedback about how good or bad the changes were. And if my meorya does not >fail, what bothers Bob -and me- is the fact that clones of Crafty can be used >and compete. I agree with him in that in the degree the sons of Crafty are no >more than clones. Bionic is still a case to examine. We have now a downloadable >Bionic so we can see that for ourselves. You don't have squat without source code. Unless the tests come back move for move identical (which they will not), you have nothing. If you run all of the tests out to about 9 million nodes total per move or so (as per Crafty and Bionic approximate tournament numbers, whatever those might be) and you run half a dozen other programs (Fritz, Junior, etc.) as well to that level, and the Bionic results are nearly identical to Crafty, but the others are not, then you have at least a starting point. You would have still proven nothing, but you can at least demostrate that between those results, the fact that Bionic was based on Crafty, and since it made near identical moves at tournament times, then it had an unfair advantage. Otherwise, you have squat. >Of course I understand what All rights reserved means. Nevertheless, "reserved" >has not an absolute and unique meaning. In the US, copywrite means copywrite. It does not even have to be in the source. It is there by default. End of story. Anything else that you try to say to twist the words are just semantics. > What you reserve depoends of what you >want to reserve. Bill gates reserves something very different for Windows that >what Bob reserves for himself. Bob has said: do what you want but send me the >feedbakc, recognizee my autorship in the original product, etc. If you do not acknowledge Robert's rights as author and try to mininmize the meaning of those rights by indicating that some other people have different rights in their code then others, then you are missing the point. Accessability and previously granted permissions DO NOT CHANGE THE RIGHTS. Period. KarinsDad PS. I think I will post some of Fernando's articles here tomorrow (with just a few minor changes) since copywrite doesn't mean anything to him. He won't mind. Be good Fernando :) > The authors os >Bionic has complied with art laest one of those petitions. maybe they are >failing in sending back to Bob the entire source code of Bionic. >Conclusion: In my view the sin of bionic people is something to be examined in >facts and not something to be stablished from now on, a priori, on legal or >moral terms. We must see the bowells of Bionic to see how much they really >putted new into it. Even some people believes the version that played in the >first half of the tournament was just a Crafty. >Greetings for all of you. >Fernando writting now from Spaceship Babylon
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.