Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:07:19 08/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2005 at 01:22:40, Uri Blass wrote: >On August 21, 2005 at 00:16:02, Cesar Contreras wrote: > >> >>It could be great if someone like you, dann, hyatt, fabien , leo and some >>others, i mean trusted people, can elaborate a definition. Since i think it's >>now pretty undefinied. >> >>It could help in next "clone" cases or in tournaments. >> >>The way it is now, people can cross the line without being aware or is afraid to >>furted advance because is afraid of crossing the line. > >My opinion is that instead of a law that forbid cloning there should be a law >that force understanding and copying should be done only with a good reason. > >Situation when a programmer cannot use faster code than the code that he wrote >inspite of understanding the faster code should not exist. > >I understand that it is not the law and even if a programmer find that data >structure of some public chess source(that he understands) is faster than other >structures that he tried he cannot use it. > >Uri I thought about it again and I think that fabien's reply by email today is basically ok that I am free to use the idea but not to use copy and paste. I will ask Fabien again about my thoughts My thoughts: 1)It means that if the programmer find that some data structure is better and understand the code he may later write equivalent structure by himself without copy and paste and it is ok. 2)I think about evaluation weights that they are not code so there is no problem to copy them. Explanation:The programmer may let the user to change the numbers and not copy and paste nothing and basically there is no difference between program that use fruit's numbers and a program that allow the user to choose fruit's numbers. Uri
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.