Author: Lance Perkins
Date: 20:21:03 05/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
You are right in that everyone is free to use these 'free ideas' (I say 'free ideas' because if IBM had thought of 'null-move' first, they would have patented it and we won't be able to use it unless we pay them). Now the real issue with the source code is 'implementation'. There are many ways to write a chess program that uses null-move, pvs-search, transposition tables, etc. There are just so many componets you need to put together, and make them right (this is the hard part). You just can't take someone else implentation and claim it as your own. If you did use someone else's source code, why not just say so? What's the harm in admitting that you copied and pasted code from someone else? The other story about open-source is the license. If the author says you can do whatever you like with the code, then you are free to do so. If the author says you can play with the code only if you also open your code (GPL), then you have your limitation. In the case of Fruit, it is GPL, and so Toga, being based on the Fruit source, also has to open its source. So really, no one is saying you can't play with the Fruit/Toga source. But if you do so, you need to open your source too. --- On May 12, 2005 at 19:31:39, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >Thanks Lance, >I agree with you on creative processes in arts. >But in the process of programming in chess you are allowed to use such an >important tool like nullmove but you are NOT allowed to let you be inspired by >open source programs? Why should we accept such a tiring routine? If you can't >exclude that for the very best programs, you are IMO not allowed to scapegoat a >powerless newbie like Vladimir Yelin. Isn't that a noble position of mine? >All the best to you and your own work. Rolf
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.