Author: Dan Honeycutt
Date: 12:40:27 05/06/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2005 at 02:11:02, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >On May 05, 2005 at 18:15:34, Dan Honeycutt wrote: > >>On May 05, 2005 at 16:51:15, Mridul Muralidharan wrote: >> >>[snip] >>> >>>This is one of the prime reasons why I dont want to write a open source chess >>>engine (I support open source devel in all other fields) or release binaries of >>>my engine. >> >>Hi Mridul: >> >>I concur with most of what you say, but I fail to follow this last point. If >>you write an open source program that is proof positive that it is not a clone >>(or that it is). If someone else clones your program that's not your headache. >> >>Best >>Dan H. > >The point is the reverse ... two points actually that I can think of : > >1) Now whenever there is accusation of someone cloning say crafty or fruit (and >maybe pretty soon Todd's program too) , others - the original authors will get >contacted to verify , there will be huge debates , etc. >Major pain. >Ofcourse , you can take the approach that I dont care if someone clones , etc - >but I have not seen anyone sucessfully take that approach in comp chess world. >In most other fields , the effort is sufficiently diverse/sparsely populated >that you dont have any issues like this. >Ex : you dont hear of someone cosmetically modifying gcc and claiming it to be >his own creation :-D >Chess is essentially individually do-able , small enough and yet challengine >enough : and a well written bug-free program can easily become very strong. >(Never mind why mine are always weak ... not well written enough , not bug free >enough , and I am usully trying out crazy ideas :) ) > >2) If you take a I dont care approach , a hard working programmer who is >learning the ropes will get disillusioned when his creation gets beaten up by >clones of open source programs. >Ofcourse , he wont know they are clones initially ! >Kind of demotivates him ... I have personally seen this happen time and again. >And I dont really understand the need for open source chess programs ... what >really is the problem they are tackling if their license is not free enough ? >The algo's are there and pretty much standards , amazingly helpful developer >community , excellent archives for learning stuff , really helpful tutorials >(which include complete programs in some cases) - I dont understand what is the >problem that really strong open source chess programs are solving or the need >for them in the first place. (unless you take the I dont care approach ... which >has its own pitfalls). >Also you should remember that if I enter my program in a tourny , and a better >compiled (and maybe better tuned ;) ) version of my own program enters the same >tourny under a different name and beats the living crap out of my program , I >wont be too happy :) > >Bottomline is , all this clone accusations and counter-accusations are what is >sickening. > >Early morning rambling ;) Sorry >Mridul Thanks Mridul and I see your point. My statement "if someone clones your program it's not your headache" is not correct. You're right, you are going to get sucked into the fray. Dan H.
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.