Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: guilty until probed the opposite

Author: Roman Hartmann

Date: 06:28:43 05/29/05

Go up one level in this thread

On May 29, 2005 at 09:03:01, Norm Pollock wrote:

>>The author doesn't have to release his code in order to prove he isn't cloning
>>imo. He doesn't have to prove anything at all. The ones accusing have to prove
>>(or collect enough evidence) that the questioned engine is a clone. Although if
>>I would be accused of cloning I would probably release some small parts of my
>>sources (data structure, parts of the move generator) just to point out the
>>differences to other engines.
>>But if you don't copy and paste code and don't dive too deeply into sources of
>>other engines there is probably no big chance left for beeing accused of cloning
>>and if so there isn't much to worry about.
>>best regards
>If you only release "some small parts" then how would anyone know if those parts
>are actually part of your engine? You have to release the whole or none at all.
>The checker has to check that your source compiles to your release or else you
>might have released faux parts.

I wasn't talking about giving the sources to a neutral tester but rather
providing a forum like the CCC with some information without just giving the
sources out to the public. If you agree on a neutral tester you certainly have
to provide him with the actual source code and the result of this compiled code
has to be the same as the questioned executable.

The "small parts" I mentioned don't prove anything, that's certainly true but
still that's what I would do about it.

There is also the option of reverse engineering to see if you share some
identical code with other engines. I missed that a bit in the Fafis case.


This page took 0.03 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.