21–30 of 136 posts
Clicking the link with lichess installed just opens the app. Long-press to open in a new tab.
FYI the lichess mobile apps have been abandoned in favour of the web view, if I recall correctly.
This is a natural consequence of releasing an open source project. It’s the equivalent of leaving a car open with a key, documents and an invitation to drive it for free.
It's closer to releasing a genetically engineered racing driver for that car. Anyone else is free to use said driver, but in this case if they make him faster they have to make their changes public because of the GPL
Related to this: the GPL's obligations about sharing the source, kick in if you're sharing the binary. It's not relevant whether you made any changes yourself. [0] For compliance, the lazy derivative product will have to make the source available. I wonder if they've done that.
[0] https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2020/fall/why-providing-source-...
> Everyone is allowed to copy Stockfish/Leela and sell them, provided the terms of the Stockfish/Leela license are met. But don’t pretend that the product being sold is something it isn’t. What's the issue? Did OS contributors suddenly realize you can make money off software? They're upset at marketers doing marketing? Don't understand the downvotes. If they violated the terms of the license or did something illegal…
“It is sad to see claims of innovation where there has been none, and claims of improvement in an engine that is weaker than its open-source origins. It is also sad to see people appropriating the open-source work and effort of others and claiming it as their own.” These seem to be their main gripes
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GPL means you can put a version with proprietary modifications in the cloud and sell api access, without contributing anything back.
Right. I thought it was an app so my bad.
I would have assumed that most people interested in chess engines are a pretty savvy and will do their research before buying anything, making the whole "create a sub-par ripoff" a rather ineffective strategy.
Many commenters are missing that the issue is not that an Open Source project was repackaged as a commercial project, but that the open source origin has been hidden.
What is the specific licensing issue here?
If this is about them not liking the product, fine, but don't dirty the open source ethos unless they are breaking the license. Part of the problem is the current HN headline perhaps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right. I thought it was an app so my bad.
It is available both for download and in cloud. So they would have to pull the download if they dont want to release source.
However, this article implies that nobody really cares about them releasing the source, as it seems that it does not have any interesting improvements.
> Everyone is allowed to copy Stockfish/Leela and sell them, provided the terms of the Stockfish/Leela license are met. But don’t pretend that the product being sold is something it isn’t. What's the issue? Did OS contributors suddenly realize you can make money off software? They're upset at marketers doing marketing? Don't understand the downvotes. If they violated the terms of the license or did something illegal…
One can (and most people do) condemn some actions even if they are technically legal.
Many commenters are missing that the issue is not that an Open Source project was repackaged as a commercial project, but that the open source origin has been hidden.
> but that the open source origin has been hidden. What is the specific licensing issue here? If this is about them not liking the product, fine, but don't dirty the open source ethos unless they are breaking the license. Part of the problem is the current HN headline perhaps.