TalkChess.com

I agree with Gabor in this issue. I have no problems forgiving him as I didnt buy the engine..

I agree with Gabor in this issue. I have no problems forgiving him as I didnt buy the engine..

what if you did?

I wasn't too active during the Toga craze, but my take on it was that Thomas just didn't make it publicly known that Toga was a Fruit derivative. He just sent it to testers, with the source code, in accordance with the GPL. Of course I could be wrong, but from what I remember the only thing against Thomas was that he wasn't being direct. Some people might have also distributed exes without source. He made it very clear he wasn't trying to fool anyone, and that was that.

But in this case, it is clear to me that it was a deliberate attempt to hide the origins of xyclOps. I remember reading all the commotion of users reporting problems with his piracy-detection code, and personally I got very suspicious. The whole xyclOps story just seemed way too fishy. And now that it is a proven clone, his actions of selling his engine and going to such lengths to prevent piracy really make me sick. AFAIK this is the only (known) commerical clone. And he's still trying to dodge the issue, saying only little parts are copied, nothing that's playing chess. It's clear that this isn't the case, that this program is largely Fruit/Toga-based. And even if only some UCI code was stolen?

Well that's STILL illegal.

Norman, I hope for your own sake that you learn what the CC community thinks of cloners. And change your ways quickly. You wouldn't want the likes of Peter Skinner or Chris Conkie messing with you. But it might be too late...

SzG wrote:Shortly after Toga was introduced to the community, it was found that it is a clone of Fruit. Its author claimed he made an 'error' by not giving credit to Fabien, but he claimed he did not know he had to. He apologized and was forgiven. What is more, he is now regarded as a respectful engine author and Toga has become an example of how 'fruitful' open source GPL-ed software is.

Now there is Norman who did the same thing (in fact worse because of accepting money for a cloned engine). He's been caught just like Thomas was caught before. But he apologizes and refunds the money. Now can he not be forgiven as well if he makes his program open source?

I mean if Xyclops can be made legal why should we discard it? It is in effect a new Fruit/Toga and it may rise to unexpected heights. As Toga says 'I am Toga based on Fruit' Xyclops might say 'I am Xylops based on Toga/Fruit'.

Trying to sell it makes it clearly worse.

However, I also think that once a person has confessed to a wrong course, apologized for it, and left it, then it is over and done with.

SzG wrote:Shortly after Toga was introduced to the community, it was found that it is a clone of Fruit. Its author claimed he made an 'error' by not giving credit to Fabien, but he claimed he did not know he had to. He apologized and was forgiven. What is more, he is now regarded as a respectful engine author and Toga has become an example of how 'fruitful' open source GPL-ed software is.

Very funny, Gabor. On the other hand, I guess the comparison is not apples vs oranges

On a serious note, I concur. No need to throw rotten tomatoes on Norman. Peace!

Zach Wegner wrote: AFAIK this is the only (known) commerical clone.

There was a precedent. See Patriot.

http://computer-chess.org/doku.php?id=c ... ngine_list

SzG wrote:Shortly after Toga was introduced to the community, it was found that it is a clone of Fruit. Its author claimed he made an 'error' by not giving credit to Fabien, but he claimed he did not know he had to. He apologized and was forgiven. What is more, he is now regarded as a respectful engine author and Toga has become an example of how 'fruitful' open source GPL-ed software is.

Now there is Norman who did the same thing (in fact worse because of accepting money for a cloned engine). He's been caught just like Thomas was caught before. But he apologizes and refunds the money. Now can he not be forgiven as well if he makes his program open source?

If he makes his program open source, yes. As far as I know, he hasn't done that yet. That is why Thomas is forgiven, and Norbert is not. Making money on a work based on a GPLed program is not a crime. Distributing it without source code is, even if you apologise afterwards.

There are no double standards in this case.

Tord

Damir wrote:I agree with Gabor in this issue. I have no problems forgiving him as I didnt buy the engine..

what if you did?

I will be too busy trying to get a refund..

SzG wrote:Shortly after Toga was introduced to the community, it was found that it is a clone of Fruit. Its author claimed he made an 'error' by not giving credit to Fabien, but he claimed he did not know he had to. He apologized and was forgiven. What is more, he is now regarded as a respectful engine author and Toga has become an example of how 'fruitful' open source GPL-ed software is.

Now there is Norman who did the same thing (in fact worse because of accepting money for a cloned engine). He's been caught just like Thomas was caught before. But he apologizes and refunds the money. Now can he not be forgiven as well if he makes his program open source?

I mean if Xyclops can be made legal why should we discard it? It is in effect a new Fruit/Toga and it may rise to unexpected heights. As Toga says 'I am Toga based on Fruit' Xyclops might say 'I am Xylops based on Toga/Fruit'.

Hi Gabor,
has Norman in any message withdrawn that his "give me a break" ?
The commercialization of the clone make the big difference.
IMO Xyclops should be buried like Elchinito/Patriot/OldBlindDog/...etc.
Matthias.

Dann Corbit wrote:

SzG wrote:Shortly after Toga was introduced to the community, it was found that it is a clone of Fruit. Its author claimed he made an 'error' by not giving credit to Fabien, but he claimed he did not know he had to. He apologized and was forgiven. What is more, he is now regarded as a respectful engine author and Toga has become an example of how 'fruitful' open source GPL-ed software is.

Now there is Norman who did the same thing (in fact worse because of accepting money for a cloned engine). He's been caught just like Thomas was caught before. But he apologizes and refunds the money. Now can he not be forgiven as well if he makes his program open source?

I mean if Xyclops can be made legal why should we discard it? It is in effect a new Fruit/Toga and it may rise to unexpected heights. As Toga says 'I am Toga based on Fruit' Xyclops might say 'I am Xylops based on Toga/Fruit'.

Trying to sell it makes it clearly worse.

However, I also think that once a person has confessed to a wrong course, apologized for it, and left it, then it is over and done with.

Very true. And correct attitude.
No one should be banned from the community if he recognizes his mistakes and apologizes for them.

Perhaps he should offer some "community service" for compensation.