Author: James B. Shearer
Date: 16:05:34 02/18/99
Go up one level in this thread
On February 18, 1999 at 16:44:37, KarinsDad wrote:
>So what you are saying is that if I were to take the Crafty source and try a
>bunch of new ideas with it and change it, play my version against the original
>version of Crafty and find out that I am about 50 ELO lower, then I can make the
>conclusion that these changes are not worth making public. Since I think that my
>program is weaker than Crafty, I am the final arbitrator as to whether these
>changes are worth keeping or not and hence nobody else in the rest of the world
>gets to see these changes since I made that decision. How is this within the
>original spirit of the distribution? It shares nothing based on the decision of
>the person making the modifications.
It places the person making modifications on the same level as Bob. If
Bob feels the changes are worthwhile he makes them public, if he doesn't think
they are worthwhile he doesn't make them public. Your position appears to be
that if I attempt to make a change and it takes three tries to get something
that will compile and five more tries to get the change to work as intended I
have to publish all eight versions. This strikes me as a tendentious
interpretation of the clause.
KarinsDad continued:
>I think that this is the exact opposite of the original spirit.
This is a problem with vague terms such as spirit. People may have
differing views of what they mean. Not to mention the fact that this clause is
not even in some versions of Crafty. I can't find it in version 11.19 which
just prohibits commercial use. Maybe it was added later?
James B. Shearer
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.