Dave wrote:

Has anyone thought why the GNU C compiler is called gcc? I guess it was
to allow the original C compilers on UNIX systems (all called cc) to
coexist happily with the GNU compiler. Same with the vim, the editor
based on vi.

Originally GCC stood for GNU C Compiler, but later was exapanced to
stand for Gnu Compiler Collection as it was extended to compile code
written in Fortran, ADA, Java, Objective-C, etc.

The authors of GCC and VIM, not being thiefs, did not steal the name
of the existing CC and VI programs without the author's permission.


Pascal wrote:

Andreas Schwarz a ?crit:

Ok, but if you use the same name, it's not possible to include your
version into the package management systems (for example, the freebsd
ports structure). Your version collide with the original Scid, this
causes some problems.

That is right. Maybe renaming to Scid2 would ease things ?

You already had a different name: Scid-pg. Then you decided to
pretend that your program was Scid and steal the Scid name.
Of *course* renaming it to some non-stolen name would ease things!
Picking a *third* name for your program is a bad idea. Call it
Scid-pg.

Anyway is there any interest in having anywhere the two versions at the
same time ? I do because I need to make some regression tests, but I
doubt any user would need both.

That's not for you to decide. You shouldn't assume that nobody else
wants to have the real Scid and your fake Scid on the same PC.

The real Scid already exists and is already in various name-based
databases, package management systems, the sourceforge page, etc.
Nobody is going to delete the real Scid to make room for your
impostor. Your decision to steal the Scid name kept you from having
your program on sourceforge, and now it appears that your decision to
steal the Scid name is keeping your program out of the freebsd ports
structure. You are only shooting yourself in the foot by stealing
the Scid name. Change it back to Scid-pg. Don't pick yet a third
name; that will just confuse things further.

--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

Anyway is there any interest in having anywhere the two versions at the
same time ? I do because I need to make some regression tests, but I
doubt any user would need both.

That's not for you to decide. You shouldn't assume that nobody else
wants to have the real Scid and your fake Scid on the same PC.


Yes, in fact, if a user has SCID installed currently, and then finds Scid-pg
and decides to try it out, he or she should not have to worry about Scid-pg
clobbering the Scid install. It is a pompous approach to think that Scid-pg
IS Scid, when in fact, it is simply a BRANCH. It can only become SCID and
head in the source tree if Shane explicitly gives Pascal the right to do this
[or imports Pascal's branch into his own as head].

The real Scid already exists and is already in various name-based
databases, package management systems, the sourceforge page, etc.
Nobody is going to delete the real Scid to make room for your
impostor. Your decision to steal the Scid name kept you from having
your program on sourceforge, and now it appears that your decision to
steal the Scid name is keeping your program out of the freebsd ports
structure. You are only shooting yourself in the foot by stealing
the Scid name. Change it back to Scid-pg. Don't pick yet a third
name; that will just confuse things further.


I won't use it, because I don't like what I have seen happen here. I did try
ChessDB once out of curiosity about its ability to update the games database,
but I have not given any real usage to anything but the original Scid in
several years [don't get me wrong, Scid is a wonderful piece of software ... I
just tend to use the database tools in the Fritz UI].

Honestly, I would consider writing the whole thing in .NET or Java (for me ...
the former as that is my profession); perhaps referencing the original code
from Shane and keeping the new application licensed under the GPL. And of
course, nobody should go ape **** about .NET as it is plenty portable to many
platforms thanks to projects like Mono; at least for an application like this.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

When the ax entered the forest, the trees said, "The handle is one of us!"
-- Turkish proverb

Thomas T. Veldhouse a écrit :

Yes, in fact, if a user has SCID installed currently, and then finds Scid-pg
and decides to try it out, he or she should not have to worry about Scid-pg
clobbering the Scid install.

That is false. On Linux, you can install it without any problem from
sources, leaving Scid 3.6.1 on your system. I don't force anybody to use
any particular software. Some are pleased to find what I do, and I
wonder if there are any reason (regression, broken updates, etc.) to
stick with a software that has not been updated for years, and will not
be, unfortunately, for a long time or probably forever. But users have
the choice. You have the choice. Simply I don't like the idea of Scid's
about box displaying "2004". And I have the right to change that.

On Windows you can even install my own version of Scid on an USB key,
even without the usual windows setup process (a simple binary to unzip).

It is a pompous approach to think that Scid-pg
IS Scid, when in fact, it is simply a BRANCH.

Ok, that's a branch. Sorry BRANCH.

It can only become SCID and
head in the source tree if Shane explicitly gives Pascal the right to do this
[or imports Pascal's branch into his own as head].

Scid has been abandonned since 2004. Did you notice that ? Nobody takes
care of Scid and all the related stuff around it at SF. Did you notice
that ?

But let me be clear : I like what I do, some users also, and feel free
not to use my pompous approach !

Pascal

Pascal wrote:
Thomas T. Veldhouse a ?crit :

Yes, in fact, if a user has SCID installed currently, and then finds Scid-pg
and decides to try it out, he or she should not have to worry about Scid-pg
clobbering the Scid install.

That is false. On Linux, you can install it without any problem from
sources, leaving Scid 3.6.1 on your system. I don't force anybody to use
any particular software. Some are pleased to find what I do, and I
wonder if there are any reason (regression, broken updates, etc.) to
stick with a software that has not been updated for years, and will not
be, unfortunately, for a long time or probably forever. But users have
the choice. You have the choice. Simply I don't like the idea of Scid's
about box displaying "2004". And I have the right to change that.


Yes, you do, but irreverantly taking over the name Scid as if it is your work
is arrogant and simply wrong. Still, you clearly would prefer to put your
self on a pedastal and ignore the valid complaints that others have raised
here about you claiming succession to Shane's work. Should the day come back
and he continue with his work .. I will get no end of joy watching you squirm
you way out of that.

On Windows you can even install my own version of Scid on an USB key,
even without the usual windows setup process (a simple binary to unzip).

It is a pompous approach to think that Scid-pg
IS Scid, when in fact, it is simply a BRANCH.

Ok, that's a branch. Sorry BRANCH.

It can only become SCID and
head in the source tree if Shane explicitly gives Pascal the right to do this
[or imports Pascal's branch into his own as head].

Scid has been abandonned since 2004. Did you notice that ? Nobody takes
care of Scid and all the related stuff around it at SF. Did you notice
that ?

Scid is Shane's work. You seem prone to rationalization, but clearly revel in
the perceived glory you think you will get by adding features to his work and
calling it your own ... in fact, the vast majority is still Shane's work [and
some others] and you are nothing more than an ursurper who may be called on it
someday by Shane himself.


But let me be clear : I like what I do, some users also, and feel free
not to use my pompous approach !


NOBODY is asking you to stop working on new enhancements to the SCID project.
But let's be clear here, you are working on a branch, and a branch is not
SCID, it is a branch of SCID. More precisely, since the the original
repository has not been branched, you are really working on a FORK. Consider
the original BSD implementation ... no one came along claiming to be BSD ...
and instead of you have FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, etc.

Consider being polite and ethical and do the right thing and name your fork
for what it is. You bring dishonor on yourself. I hope Shane recovers from
whatever has kept him away for the last couple of years and if he comes back,
he has the right to use the name SCID and you do not.

I will use either SCID or ChessDB for this reason alone. Frankly, I am
getting tempted to write a new version to get rid of all the TCL crap.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

When the ax entered the forest, the trees said, "The handle is one of us!"
-- Turkish proverb

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

[to Pascal georges] irreverantly taking over the name Scid as if
it is your work is arrogant and simply wrong. Still, you clearly
would prefer to put your self on a pedastal and ignore the valid
complaints that others have raised here about you claiming
succession to Shane's work. Should the day come back and he
continues with his work .. I will get no end of joy watching
you squirm your way out of that.

Scid is Shane's work. You seem prone to rationalization, but
clearly revel in the perceived glory you think you will get
by adding features to his work and calling it your own ... in
fact, the vast majority is still Shane's work [and some others]
and you are nothing more than an ursurper who may be called on
it someday by Shane himself.

Let's be clear here, you are working on a branch, and a branch
is not SCID, it is a branch of SCID. More precisely, since the
the original repository has not been branched, you are really
working on a FORK.

Consider being polite and ethical and do the right thing and
name your fork for what it is. You bring dishonor on yourself.
I hope Shane recovers from whatever has kept him away for the
last couple of years and if he comes back, he has the right to
use the name SCID and you do not.

I will use either SCID or ChessDB for this reason alone.

Why avoid ChessDB? The author appeared to done everything
just as he should have, picking a non-confusing name, making
it clear that it was a derivative of SCID, and adding new
features. Why avoid his work just because some other fellow
is unethical?

Frankly, I am getting tempted to write a new version to get
rid of all the TCL crap.

....and Pascal Georges will no doubt steal your code too,
publishing a fork with the same name. The person he steals
from being missing is a convenience for him, not a requirement.

Somebody needs to edit the Wikipedia page for SCID. I would,
but I would have trouble following the neutral viewpoint rules.

--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Thomas T. Veldhouse a écrit :

Yes, you do, but irreverantly taking over the name Scid as if it is your work
is arrogant and simply wrong.

That it is wrong is your opinion. Lots of people don't share it.
I never made anything to let people think that Scid was my personal
work. If *you* swear to work on it and maintain it, feel free to take my
work, and replace my name by yours. I don't care, all what is important
is that users find something maintained, not abandonned.

You are clearly unfair here.

Still, you clearly would prefer to put your
self on a pedastal

Funny. Where is the pedastal ?

and ignore the valid complaints that others have raised
here about you claiming succession to Shane's work.

That those complaints are "valid" is your opinion, and may be shared by
others. *I* don't share it, as others.
There are two kinds of people : those working, those talking. I prefer
the first.

Should the day come back
and he continue with his work .. I will get no end of joy watching you squirm
you way out of that.

I completely assume that. One hundred percent confident.

On Windows you can even install my own version of Scid on an USB key,
even without the usual windows setup process (a simple binary to unzip).

It is a pompous approach to think that Scid-pg
IS Scid, when in fact, it is simply a BRANCH.
Ok, that's a branch. Sorry BRANCH.

It can only become SCID and
head in the source tree if Shane explicitly gives Pascal the right to do this
[or imports Pascal's branch into his own as head].
Scid has been abandonned since 2004. Did you notice that ? Nobody takes
care of Scid and all the related stuff around it at SF. Did you notice
that ?

Scid is Shane's work. You seem prone to rationalization, but clearly revel in
the perceived glory you think you will get by adding features to his work and
calling it your own ...

Why do you think there is glory where there is strictly none ? This
astonishes me sometimes, when people fights around such ridiculous
things, as if the burden of Scid's maintainance would lead to any glory.

I always said that if anybody would continue Scid, I will collaborate
with him. If you want to issue a take over of Scid and have the
shuolders for it, I would be happy to give you all what I did. And if
you want to delete my name everywhere, in Scid's code, just do it. I
would still be happy to submit patches. If I submit code, anybody can
state it is its own : I really don't care.

So go ahead, and please work on it !

in fact, the vast majority is still Shane's work [and
some others] and you are nothing more than an ursurper who may be called on it
someday by Shane himself.

I assume it. But Shane Hudson dropped me some positive feedback that
make me feel confident about that issue :-)

I hope Shane recovers from
whatever has kept him away for the last couple of years and if he comes back,
he has the right to use the name SCID and you do not.

Right. If Shane comes, back he can simply copy/paste some or all of what
I did and release Scid 4.0 in a couple of days. This is a major problem
for you ? Do you think that it would bother him so much ?
I find it hard to follow your arguing : you consider "pedastal", "glory"
when the issue has nothing to do with that.

Frankly, I am
getting tempted to write a new version to get rid of all the TCL crap.


Good. Start to work, and let us know what you achieved.

Pascal

Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

Consider being polite and ethical and do the right thing and
name your fork for what it is. You bring dishonor on yourself.
I hope Shane recovers from whatever has kept him away for the
last couple of years and if he comes back, he has the right to
use the name SCID and you do not.

I will use either SCID or ChessDB for this reason alone.

Why avoid ChessDB? The author appeared to done everything
just as he should have, picking a non-confusing name, making
it clear that it was a derivative of SCID, and adding new
features. Why avoid his work just because some other fellow
is unethical?


I don't avoid ChessDB. Did you misread what I wrote above? "I will use
either SCID or ChessDB for this reason alone."

Frankly, I am getting tempted to write a new version to get
rid of all the TCL crap.

...and Pascal Georges will no doubt steal your code too,
publishing a fork with the same name. The person he steals
from being missing is a convenience for him, not a requirement.


If I wrote my own, it wouldn't be a branch or a fork, it would be a new
product. However, I might reference the SCID code and maintain compatibility
with the SCID databases; which I can do under the GPL.

Somebody needs to edit the Wikipedia page for SCID. I would,
but I would have trouble following the neutral viewpoint rules.


Just do it ... let Pascal complain that it isn't neutral.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

When the ax entered the forest, the trees said, "The handle is one of us!"
-- Turkish proverb

Andreas Hofmann wrote:
Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:


I will use either SCID or ChessDB for this reason alone. Frankly, I am
getting tempted to write a new version to get rid of all the TCL crap.

How about joining the chessX project?

http://chessx.sourceforge.net/?q=node/5


Not bad at all ... and C++ with Qt (I like Qt). If I find the time, I might.
My background is in C++ (lot's of ATL COM stuff and STL, POSIX on Unix), but
not so much with Qt ... we shall see.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

When the ax entered the forest, the trees said, "The handle is one of us!"
-- Turkish proverb

Pascal wrote:
Thomas T. Veldhouse a ?crit :

Yes, you do, but irreverantly taking over the name Scid as if it is your work
is arrogant and simply wrong.

That it is wrong is your opinion. Lots of people don't share it.
I never made anything to let people think that Scid was my personal
work. If *you* swear to work on it and maintain it, feel free to take my
work, and replace my name by yours. I don't care, all what is important
is that users find something maintained, not abandonned.

You are clearly unfair here.


No I am not ... you don't maintain SCID. You maintain your own branch/fork of
SCID. That is no subtle distinction. You go from being a contributor to
being outright presumptious. I REALLY REALLY hope Shane comes back some day
soon.

Still, you clearly would prefer to put your
self on a pedastal

Funny. Where is the pedastal ?


Using the name SCID as if you are maintaining the SCID code. You are not, you
have forked the code and doing so means you specifically are NOT the SCID
maintainer. Scid-Pg was a proper name, but that wasn't good enough for you
apparently.

I assume it. But Shane Hudson dropped me some positive feedback that
make me feel confident about that issue :-)


He did eh? When it was called Scid-Pg? Please feel free to post that
feedback here.

Right. If Shane comes, back he can simply copy/paste some or all of what
I did and release Scid 4.0 in a couple of days. This is a major problem
for you ? Do you think that it would bother him so much ?
I find it hard to follow your arguing : you consider "pedastal", "glory"
when the issue has nothing to do with that.


You know very well, it is the name that is the issue. That and the fact that
you were forced to attribute code taken from chessdb and did not do so of your
own volition.

Frankly, I am
getting tempted to write a new version to get rid of all the TCL crap.


Good. Start to work, and let us know what you achieved.


If I did, and I probably won't, it wouldn't be called Scid ... especially
since it wouldn't have any TCL; it wouldn't be a fork or a branch.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse

When the ax entered the forest, the trees said, "The handle is one of us!"
-- Turkish proverb

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

I don't avoid ChessDB. Did you misread what I wrote above?

I did misread what you wrote. my apologies.

Frankly, I am getting tempted to write a new version to get
rid of all the TCL crap.

...and Pascal Georges will no doubt steal your code too,
publishing a fork with the same name. The person he steals
from being missing is a convenience for him, not a requirement.

If I wrote my own, it wouldn't be a branch or a fork, it would
be a new product. However, I might reference the SCID code and
maintain compatibility with the SCID databases; which I can do
under the GPL.

Shane's work was his own, but that didn't stop Pascal from
making a fork (perfectly legal and even encouraged under
the GPL) and then stealing the name and pretending to be the
maintainer of the original.

Let's say you write a great new chess database under the GPL
and call it, say, VeldhouseDB V1.0 Pascal Georges will make
a fork that is mostly copied code, call it VeldhouseDB V2.0
and declare that he has every right to "continue your work"
without your permission and that he is the "maintainer of
VeldhouseDB." The fact that Shane is sick and you aren't
won't stop him.

(For those unfamiliar with the GPL, it isn't the copying
that is a problem -- I could copy the code of the imaginary
VeldhouseDB V1.0 as a basis to create GuyMaconDB V1.0 or
V2.0 and nobody would complain. It is the stealing of the
name and the claiming that his fork is somehow more official
than any other fork that is objectionable)

--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/