Author: Mike S.
Date: 20:55:56 02/24/06
Go up one level in this thread
On February 24, 2006 at 22:29:04, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 24, 2006 at 15:20:29, Mike S. wrote: > >>What is a clone? > >A clone is _any_ program derived mainly from another program. Doesn't matter >whether the program is open source, closed source, magic source or what. >Doesn't matter if the author of the clone has permission from the author of the >original program. Nothing matters. We are using the _same_ rules as the ICGA >uses for the WCCC events. Any program derived from another program is termed a >"clone" and is not allowed, period... Again, it is not my concern what the rules for participation in CCT are. >>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. > > > >Doesn't suggest any such thing to "us". It just suggests that the new program >is derived principly from an existing program, making the new program a >non-unique piece of work. Putting "us" in quotes rally makes sense, because maybe there are different "us..." I think I'm not so wrong guessing that a clear majority of customers, fans and users relates the word "clone" with something incorrect, unethical and/or even illegal. You may claim that this is not the correct expert's definition. But whenever big clone scandal topics came up in the past, it was like that. You probably know it best anyway. So nobody can "act naive" and use the word clone as if it would be the perfect description for something which is ok. Also I guess that ~95% of the computer chess community and CCC consists of customers, fans and users who are not programmers, which means the image and standing of a program and it's creator(s) depend on what this majority thinks (*) and with which talk about it is being confronted. And if a correct legal open source engine is called a "clone" I protest against such wording. I would have thought that this is obvious and that the moderation cleary supports it. *) The alternative would be, only what programmers think and say is relevant, and the audience shall provide motivation and/or money, sometimes clap but most of the time remain silent :) (Btw. I have an opinion why only very few chess programmers support my view, if any.) Regards, M.Scheidl
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.