Author: Miguel A. Ballicora
Date: 19:36:45 02/15/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2004 at 16:58:02, Slater Wold wrote:
>On February 15, 2004 at 16:51:28, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
>>On February 15, 2004 at 16:47:14, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>
>>>On February 15, 2004 at 16:07:11, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>>
>>>>On February 15, 2004 at 15:52:35, Matthias Gemuh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On February 15, 2004 at 15:07:39, Robert Hyatt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Here we disagree. I see nothing wrong with starting from some known point, so
>>>>>>long as you eventually end up with nothing but your own code... Otherwise you
>>>>>>will spend a long time writing all the support stuff, and many lose interest
>>>>>>before they get far enough along to actually see their creation play any real
>>>>>>chess...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>IE this is where "C" came from. Changes to "B". Etc...
>>>>
>>>>Let's suppose that somehere in the process, your algorithms looked considerably
>>>>similar to the ones that you started with.
>>>>
>>>>Then you let people use your program. Someone noticed that some data arrays in
>>>>your program were the same as in his.
>>>>
>>>>A big brew-ha-ha starts.
>>>>
>>>>Apparently the crime committed is that enough changes were not committed yet to
>>>>make it unrecognizable.
>>>>
>>>>I do not think that this is the path that DanChess did. Rather, he took ideas
>>>>from crafty and grafted the algorithms into his program. In doing so, he had to
>>>>make changes to each idea that he adopted.
>>>>
>>>>This is somehow seen as a great crime, but the other not?
>>>>
>>>>Puzzling to me. It is the copy/replace scheme that seems criminal to me. And
>>>>the adoption of ideas that seems totally harmless.
>>>
>>>
>>>I'll remind you once again, I copied _lots_ of ideas over the years, from
>>>various people like Slate, Thompson, et. al. But I have never copied _any_
>>>source code from anyone...
>>>
>>>This is about source, not about ideas. They are different.
>>>
>>>I would have no problem whatsoever with DanChess had he did what he did, but
>>>then evolved things to be significantly different _before_ starting to
>>>distribute it as an original chess program.
>>
>>You bring up an interesting point. Not about copyright and not about
>>algorithms. But about ownership. Not ownership of ideas or algorithms or
>>source code, but ownership of a system. The question is this:
>>
>>I started with system x and made systematic changes to arrive at system y.
>>
>>At what point does system x.n on the way to becomeing system y become "mine" as
>>opposed to the original owner of system x?
>>
>>I have no idea how such a determination might be made.
>
>The Supreme Court came up with this standard long ago.
Supreme court of what country? ;-)
>The new system has to make the work easier, and be more effecient. Period.
Not enough for "computer chess" as sport, IMHO.
Here the standards should be different, I think.
Miguel
>http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/patentcases/query=[Group+383us1:]([level+case+citation:]|[level+case+elements:])/doc/{@1}/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only?
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.