Author: Roger Brown
Date: 14:03:52 02/24/06
Go up one level in this thread
>I did not know clone was a bad word. I did Gambit Fruit and I call it a clone. >Legal clone that respects the true author but still a clone. I would of course >prefer people test engines like Scorpio and Glaurung before Gambit Fruit because >they are original works that took a lot more effort than I use on Gambit Fruit >(the point of Gambit Fruit was not strength anyway, it was to test ideas in a >strong open source engine.) I think many people misunderstand the difference in >work required to write a chess program and to modify one. I mean no disrespect >to Thomas (or myself) as I feel like he agrees with this and I feel like any >open source contribution is positive as he has done with Toga. > >Ryan Hello Ryan, The word clone creates a generally negative implication. However, Michael's solution is to simply redefine it and wish the issue away. Say you use a term like legally constructed derivative work. What is going to matter is - what is left of that thing when you subtract the code from the engine which is the subject of the derivative work? If what is left is substantially a chess engine then it is not a clone. If it isn't then we are simply throwing words and definitions all over the place. I admire your direct approach in this matter in simply declaring what your engine was up front. I suspect that some of the emotions of the membership are tied up with Thomas' initial approach for which I hold no ill-will I might add. I think that the lesson was learned.... I agree, I think that your ideas were positive - most ideas are if given a chance actually. All the best and thanks for speaking plainly. Later.
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.