Difference between revisions of "Talk:GreatWolf"
(RWPCL / trivial methods) |
|||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
: Ah, I see. Personally, I consider that method trivial enough that it's probably not copyright-able - in fact I have it in [[Diamond]] which is not [[RWPCL]] (but is open source). I wouldn't be surprised if there's a method somewhere in java.awt.geom to do the same thing. But it's your call of course. =) --[[User:Voidious|Voidious]] 15:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC) | : Ah, I see. Personally, I consider that method trivial enough that it's probably not copyright-able - in fact I have it in [[Diamond]] which is not [[RWPCL]] (but is open source). I wouldn't be surprised if there's a method somewhere in java.awt.geom to do the same thing. But it's your call of course. =) --[[User:Voidious|Voidious]] 15:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | : I would agree with that, but I would also note that the [[RWPCL]] probably wouldn't hold up very well in court. I am merely trying to do what's right and in this case, that would be respecting PEZ's work. My assumption is that he would prefer the bot to be open source. That being said, I do think my description made it sound compulsory while I doubt PEZ would mind it being closed source and it probably is not copyright-able. --[[User:AW|AW]] 20:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:48, 4 April 2011
Well, it looks like GreatWolf is a strong first competitor! Definitely much better than my first attempts(as well as my recent ones, sadly). I should be releasing my own first real mega soon though, so we'll see how they compare then. Congrats--CrazyBassoonist 12:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
GreatWolf indeed is a competitor that is noticed. Do you mind to fill us in about the differences between the versions and your ideas for the next versions? Although version 0.92 and 0.93 perform roughly the same, there is a huge difference in their details. And btw, why does your bot start with 'Gr', that combination is reserved . . . ;-) --GrubbmGait 09:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, very nice entrance to the rumble! Most of us didn't start nearly that high. =) I'm curious, what RWPCL code do you have in your surfing? I ask because the only credits I see are to the Wave Surfing Tutorial, which is definitely public domain. Anyway, best of luck climbing the rankings! --Voidious 14:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I added version history and will add the "what's next for your robot?" section next. As regards the wave surfing, the tutorial is in the public domain, but the Cassius Clay code (the project method, about 5 lines) is licensed under the RWPCL. This is of course a small snippet that I could easily replace, but I don't mind having my bots open source (I used the BSD license so other people can use my sloppy gun in closed source robots. After all, the source code is obfuscated ;-) )--AW 15:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, I see. Personally, I consider that method trivial enough that it's probably not copyright-able - in fact I have it in Diamond which is not RWPCL (but is open source). I wouldn't be surprised if there's a method somewhere in java.awt.geom to do the same thing. But it's your call of course. =) --Voidious 15:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
- I would agree with that, but I would also note that the RWPCL probably wouldn't hold up very well in court. I am merely trying to do what's right and in this case, that would be respecting PEZ's work. My assumption is that he would prefer the bot to be open source. That being said, I do think my description made it sound compulsory while I doubt PEZ would mind it being closed source and it probably is not copyright-able. --AW 20:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
