alpha123 wrote:Does anyone know what the strongest version of Cyclone xTreme is? default, Fear, Rage, Wrath, Fury.....
I was planning on putting the strongest in a tournament I am going to run, but I don't want to have to do all the testing I'm sure has already been done to find the best.
Thanks,
Peter
In my opinion, it's Cyclone xTreme Fury, but they're all pretty close in strength.
It certainly has the most fearsome name of the bunch.
Ironic, in some sense, with genesis from a program called 'fruit'.
Including more engines from outside the Fruit/Toga family might tell a
different story, but I think there is little difference in strength between the
different versions.
How come GPL code end up with non-free code like Nalimov's?
Miguel
Miguel,
I don't know about this technicality, but as long as he has permission for the Nalimov code, it is simply/practically legal.
Denis
Of course it is legal, I am not questioning that. The author can do whatever he wants with his code. But, it is not GPL anymore if it contains non-free code. I don't know, it sounds weird to me.
Of course it is legal, I am not questioning that. The author can do whatever he wants with his code. But, it is not GPL anymore if it contains non-free code. I don't know, it sounds weird to me.
I think to handle this the author has to add an exception to the GPL license (which he can do if he is the sole author) allowing for linking against certain specific non-free software.
This being said, now that Gaviota table bases exist, there seems to be zero reason for linking against Nalimov table bases.
Of course it is legal, I am not questioning that. The author can do whatever he wants with his code. But, it is not GPL anymore if it contains non-free code. I don't know, it sounds weird to me.
I think to handle this the author has to add an exception to the GPL license (which he can do if he is the sole author) allowing for linking against certain specific non-free software.
This being said, now that Gaviota table bases exist, there seems to be zero reason for linking against Nalimov table bases.
How come GPL code end up with non-free code like Nalimov's?
Miguel
Miguel,
I don't know about this technicality, but as long as he has permission for the Nalimov code, it is simply/practically legal.
Denis
Of course it is legal, I am not questioning that. The author can do whatever he wants with his code. But, it is not GPL anymore if it contains non-free code. I don't know, it sounds weird to me.
Miguel
Miguel,
I've read again the new GPLv3 FAQ (used by Protector) and saw your point here. The clause involving "aggregate' code is still debatable. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
Though legality to use Nalimov code is ok provided permission from author, there is a contradiction on how the modified code will be licensed when distributed to public. For private use, it is not a problem. I hope FSF has a good answer for this in case there is a complaint. There has to be an exception somewhere.
This is a different case compared to Crafty, Thor's Hammer and Brutus which are not GPLed. I wonder what license they are using!
This has to be very clear especially for future cases involving free open source chess engines who will go the same route.
But with Gaviota EGTB around, it will be another option for Protector to keep things straight.
Software distribution is a very sensitive/complicated matter sometimes, especially with the various licenses, etc. But I hope Protector is given the same respect as the rest of the so-called "derivatives".