Author: Will Singleton
Date: 10:07:05 03/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 21, 2000 at 12:00:03, KarinsDad wrote: >On March 21, 2000 at 11:14:41, Andrew Dados wrote: > >>On March 21, 2000 at 10:23:34, Georg v. Zimmermann wrote: >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>If you started "serious" chess programming by modifying an Open Source program, >>>spending countless hours, at what point can you honestly speak of "YOUR program" >>>? >>> >>>In my case I rewrote the complete evaluation function, I changed the piece >>>values drastically and added / changed some of the extensions and rewrote the >>>time-handling routine + minor things. >>> >>>But 95% of the code is still the original, since I didn't feel like inventing >>>the wheel so no changes to basic alpha-beta or move-generation routines or >>>winboard connection. >>> >>>My finger notes on Fics say that the program is "[original program] with changes >>>in ...", I would like to call it "[my program], based on [original program]". >>> >>>Do you think that is ok ? What is your opinion ? At what point can you give it >>>an own name and don't have to speak of a "modified xyz" anymore ? >>> >>>Regards, >>>Georg v. Zimmermann >> >>I may try some 'rule of thumb' here: If you wrote more, than, say, 50% of code >>yourself, and the rest is based on some open source, you could say "[my >>program], based (originated) on [that program]". Otherwise it's just [that >>program] with some stuff added/tweaked... >> >>There is one interesting issue here - if someone distributes his source ment as >>a tool to base on when building your program (under e.g. GPL), then you can >>treat that tool like any other. How much code is yours in typical MFC based >>windoze proggy (or Delphi) anyway? Some 10-40% maybe... >> >>In any case license of that open source should be decisive and explicitly state >>what is/is not allowed... >> >>That all IMO of course. >>-Andrew- > >I tend to agree with Andrew. > >If we have to draw the line, we have to draw it with respect to the person who >wrote the original code and not to the person who modified it. > >Open source code is kind of like a book. If Frank wrote a book on "How to Build >a House" and Fred came along and made a few modifications, I would tend to think >that this revised book is now called "How to Build a House by Frank, with >revisions by Fred". > >Now that I have said that, I will put a caveat on it. > >If the person who writes the original source states that anyone can use it for >anything, then the second person can change one line of code and the revised >program is now 100% the second person's. <snip> Why change a line? Your argument is toward ownership, not authorship. The pertinent question is, given an open source program with or without restrictions, at what point does the program become a new product? I also agree with Andrew, which is to say, you can *never* claim a modified source as *solely* your own product. The 50% level seems a good one to start claiming a new program that has been modified from the original. In George's case, he could say that he has modified an existing program. And that is pretty cool too; would be interesting to see how certain programs played with a new evaluation function. Will
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.