Author: Kurt Utzinger
Date: 03:45:06 04/01/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 01, 2005 at 04:35:58, milix wrote:
>On March 31, 2005 at 19:59:06, Andreas Guettinger wrote:
>
>>On March 31, 2005 at 18:54:01, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>
>>>>Absolutely agreed! Admitting to be a cloner doesn't make it better IMO.
>>>>Even if the few code changes (simple ones on a high level) really have
>>>>an impact of around 40-50 ELO, I am quite sure Fabien would have
>>>>tried the same techniques sooner or later, _if_ he had the time, but AFAIK
>>>>he has very little time currently in developing Fruit.
>>>>IMO the 'Toga extensions' just robbed Fruit's future...
>>>
>>>Perhaps they modifications will be contributed back to the core.
>>>
>>>That would have been more sensible in the first place.
>>>
>>>IMO-YMMV.
>>
>>That would have been the right thing to do. Especially for such a young program
>>as fruit, it makes not a lot of senses to make some changes to the source and
>>introduce it as a separate entity to tournaments.
>>
>>
>>regards
>>Andy
>
>Why? This is not in the copyright of the Fruit. Toga is a totally legal engine
>for me and stands for its own. It mentions that is a derivative of Fruit and
>also releases its source code, all according to GPL. This also doesn't heart
>Fabien or else he wouldn't release the source code. This is the way I understand
>his words in his post in this thread.
LOL: an engine which contains 1 % modified source
code from the original can't stand for its own
I think. It should be named Fruit X but the modified
engine does under no circumstances deserves a own
name.
Kurt [http://www.utzingerk.com]
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.