Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 09:43:28 08/22/05
Go up one level in this thread
On August 21, 2005 at 15:52:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On August 21, 2005 at 14:58:45, Peter Fendrich wrote: > >>Technically it is not a clone but I think there is a limit somewhere that is >>hard to set... >>I mean there is a difference if you take influence from som specific function >>that you found compared to in detail study the whole program and trying to >>implement function after function. In both case I think that the original author >>at least deserves a thanks in the readme file. >>Cloning or not, I think that being open and honest about it is the key. >> >>/Peter > >This is a tough question. If someone shows me a 1000 line program in language >X, and all I do is translate it to language Y, that has to be a clone. But what >if I don't translate line by line, but function by function. That is, I examine >the move generator, and then write an equivalent from scratch in a different >language. Repeat for all functions. Now it is harder. But, IMHO, it is >_still_ a clone. Crafty re-written in whatever language you choose will still >be crafty... PVS is not trivial. Most programs use it. They did not invent it. Which program was the inventor of hash tables for storing already searched positions? Can others use this innovation? Why should a chess program with only copyright protection be given patent level algorithm protection? At any rate, I think that copying ideas will never create superiority (except for the very short term). It is innovation that will create long term growth. I think that most programmers have caught onto that now.
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.