Author: KarinsDad
Date: 08:57:25 03/22/00
Go up one level in this thread
On March 21, 2000 at 18:26:30, Will Singleton wrote: >On March 21, 2000 at 14:05:11, KarinsDad wrote: > >>On March 21, 2000 at 13:07:05, Will Singleton wrote: >> >>[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? >> >>Exactly. If you use the word product, it implies some form of selling. Let's use >>the word "beast". >> >>Given an open source program with or without restrictions, at what point does >>the program become a new beast? >> >>My opinion is that it becomes a new beast the moment a line of code is modified >>(hence, the reason for versions in software). > >Okay, yes, but if I understand you, your argument still addresses ownership >issues. George is asking about authorship. Anyone can write or modify >something and claim to be the author, without ownership. IBM owns Deep Blue (I >guess), but Hsu et al are the authors, and always will be. > It is difficult to separate the two. For example, I take CM6000 and create a personality that kicks every computers butt. Now, this is the same version of CM6000 and I am obviously not the author of it, but my CM6000 is stronger than everyone else's. The reason is the the real author created a set of configuration options that allowed me to modify how the program played internally. Now, I take the Crafty source and change the eval function. And, I have a different program than what anyone else has. And it kicks butt, just like my modified CM6000 did. What is the difference between these two scenarios? In the first, the REAL author and owner gave me a programatic option to modify portions of the code (specifically, the eval function and possibly some others). In the second, the REAL author and owner gave me a non-promgramatic option to modify portions of the code (i.e. I will have to go change the code myself, I cannot do it within a dialog box). Is there any real difference between the two? Did the REAL authors and owners in each of these cases give up any of their rights, just because they supplied people with a different method to change how the program works? My contention is that there is no difference. The original authors/owners gave others the ability to make the program play differently, they just did it in different ways. The original authors/owners in both of these scenarios still own and still authored the program, no matter how others modify them. JMO. 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.