Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:39:03 01/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 1999 at 17:31:54, KarinsDad wrote: >On January 27, 1999 at 17:03:27, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >[snip] >>>> >>>> >>>>Wait: >>>>a) If they put a lot of effort and changed evaluation functions,. I would say >>>>that's enough to talk of another program >>> >>>I have never said that it is not a different program. I have never even said >>>that the clones are not different programs, since some of them have changes >>>incorporated and hence, are minimally different versions of the same program. I >>>said that using the Crafty source as a baseline for a program in a tournament >>>was unauthorized. >>> >>>>b) Yes, they kept the search function, but -am not sure- that fraction could be >>>>considered as a kind of general tool as alfa-beta, prunning, etc are. Specially >>>>would be so if the author, as he has did, made it available. >>> >>>The SMP portion of the search algorithm cannot in any sense of the word be >>>considered a general tool. Very few programs outside of Crafty have SMP support >>>and SMP support is a MAJOR mechanism for strength increase. >>> >>>Even without considering the SMP code, your a) and b) are irrelevant. The degree >>>of changes does not matter unless every line of code is changed and only the >>>ideas are used. Since this was not done, I still maintain my position on this. >>> >>>KarinsDad >>> >>>PS. The following questions are also irrelevant to the discussion, but I am >>>still curious. Fernando, have you ever written a chess program? If so, can you >>>not comprehend Robert's dismay that a portion of his copywrited code (and a >>>major piece of work it is) was used to defeat opponents in a tournament without >>>his permission? >> >> >> >> >>Karinsdad: >>It seems that we have been discussing different issues from the beginning. > >No, again you take my words out of context. The questions, that you are >responding to below, were in a PS that I even stated was irrelevant to the >conversation. When will people start reading and stop reacting? > >> I am >>not here to discuss the right of Bob to be angry or not; I am not discussing his >>states of mind; I am not blessing the participation of Bionic in a tournament. I >>am not making judgements about how fair was that participation. No, my issue is: >>those guys had a right to do what they did, something that has been done before >>with Crafty, etc, etc. Nothing so amazing or horrible. Yes, they did defeat >>people with a vey fast device, but that same device was available for the >>losers. I repeat: you can go to compete with a device made from scratch or you >>can make good use of public or half public -if you prefer- resources. Crafty is >>one of those public or half public resoruces and those guys used it; other did >>not and lost. You know Bob as I know him: if something really ilegal and >>untolerabvle had been commited, you can bet flames and thunder would be falling >>over the heads of those people. > >Actually, I believe that you underestimate Robert. Just because he has not >displayed the intolerance over this issue (he has read the recent moderation >issues as well) that he sometimes displays on rgcc does not mean that he >interprets that nothing wrong has been done. > this really has nothing to do with anything. I pay no attention to 'moderation policies' here. I will continue to say exactly what I think/mean. If that doesn't 'pass muster' the so be it, I will simply remain active in r.g.c.c... So no, I am not remaining quieter than normal because I worry about what the moderators thing. If this can't be discussed openly and accurately here, I, for one, will not remain. I have been fairly quiet because my feelings are not real strong here. I will again restate my thoughts: 1. the bionic folks did, in fact, violate the spirit and intent of the source released for crafty. The source explains the usual GPL-type intent and clearly says that any changes can be made, but that the changes have to remain public along with the original source. They didn't do this. Ok... no big deal overall. 2. the parallel search is a big deal as it was obviously taken verbatim and used in another program with a different name. That is not ethical on several grounds. First the license agreement doesn't give anyone permission to do that. Second it is a big performance improvement for no work other than copying 20,000+ lines of code. And finally it was used against a lot of amateur programs in a way that didn't feel 'right' to anyone there. 3. how much was 'changed' or 'not changed' isn't an issue, because I don't care. I only require, as the comments in main.c clearly explain, that the changes to the source remain public with the original source. I expect we will find that crafty/bionic look pretty similar in this big comparison test. What does that mean? who knows. How many different moves must there be before we consider them 'different programs'? Don't have an answer there either. It just ought not happen, _period_. You join a freeware project like linux or crafty, you just don't suddenly take what you can and run with it. _I_ am not the only contributor to crafty. I did the majority, but many others have done all sorts of work, from helping with debugging to writing code, to collecting huge PGN game collections for the book, to building a better endgame database program. And _all_ of that gets taken at the same time and used as the basis for a 'private' program. It isn't something I would ever consider, nor approve. But I'm not hyper- ventilating about it either... I just live and learn... >> He is not happy, but he is not that much offset >>if you are concerned, again, with the mental health of Bob. Finally, I wonder >>from wehere did you pick that idea that "only" ideas can be extracted from >>crafty > >I thought I responded to the "only" terminology. I guess that part was missed >too. > >> or whatever and that "every" line of code shpld be changed. > >Where does one draw the line? One line of code changed. 50 lines of code >changed. The only thing a reasonable person can say is: All lines of code >changed. It is either derived, or it is not. It's that simple. Partially derived >and partially modified code is still partially derived. Partially derived code >used without the permission of the author is a copywrite violation. Go ask a >lawyer. > >> My God, you >>are really a fundamentalist. > >Cool! Another label I can tack onto my resume. Thanks Fernando! :) > >> May i introduce you to the Califa of Teheran? >>Salam ALeikum >>Fernando > >Ah, so you know him personally. Remind me to not invite you to my house. > >KarinsDad :)
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.