Author: Andrew Dados
Date: 14:01:44 02/24/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 24, 2006 at 16:55:17, Thomas Mayer wrote: >Hi Dann, > >On February 24, 2006 at 16:46:22, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On February 24, 2006 at 15:39:34, M Hurd wrote: >> >>>On February 24, 2006 at 15:20:29, Mike S. wrote: >>> >>>>First, I want to mention that I already have written a mail using the moderator >>>>form - NOT related to any personal conflict or arguing or the like - but I think >>>>the matter needs to be clarified because the response i got so far, clearly is >>>>not sufficient. >>>> >>>>What is a clone? >>>> >>>>IMO the wording "clone" suggests that something incorrect or even illegal is >>>>going on. It describes software which incorrectly consists of parts for which no >>>>permission from the original author has been given, for use in another program >>>>released by somebody else. >>>> >>>>Using "clone" to describe an engine clearly discredits the programmer. An engine >>>>created and distributed correctly, is not a clone. This matter has been >>>>intensively discussed and explained in the past, and it is clear that Toga II >>>>1.x is a correct and legal open source engine, based on o.s. Fruit 2.1. >>>>Therefore, the wording "clone" is not acceptable here. >>>> >>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?489033 >>>> >>>>I expect from the other moderators, to make this clear in CCC public. I expect >>>>that programmers correctly participating in open source chess engine projects, >>>>are treated fair and that the software they release, are not called clones. >>>> >>>>This is NOT about if an engine can play in some tournament or not, by it's rules >>>>each. I'm not interested in that, but in avoiding public wording in CCC which >>>>discredits someone in inacceptable manner! >>>> >>>>This is not a matter of taste nor just my private opinion. Again, I point the >>>>moderators to the fact that "clone" cleary is a discrediting, incriminating >>>>word! >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>>M.Scheidl >>> >>> >>>Clone Definition >>> >>>http://www.bellevuelinux.org/clone.html >> >>If we use that definition, then Toga is not a clone but a copy. >>Clearly, Toga II is chock full of code from Fruit. > >Well, Toga is a slightly modified Fruit... but of course with an amazing big >impact to it's playing strength. No doubt about that. >Anyway it is a clone at least according to my definition. > >Greets, Thomas If some open source project goes 2 ways it is called a FORK. So Toga is clearly a fork off Fruit codebase. It is also a clone but there is no bad context attached to 'clone' here. -Andrew-
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.