Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open source chess developers warn about a commercial engine based on Stockfish

lichess.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 136 posts

Re: Open source chess developers warn about a commercial engine based on Stockfish

#101

Post by zelphirkalt »

e-v wrote: post #98
zelphirkalt wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are these _open source_ licenses, which require you to link to the full source code? I might not have seen such a license yet. Usually "open source license" equates to MIT license and BSD licenses, which do not require you to link to the source code.

Not all 'open source' licenses are 'non-copyleft' or 'permissive' licenses.

That's why I wrote "usually" and "I might not have seen" ... Can you please _read_ what is written and consider it, before writing things, that I already know might be true?

Re: Open source chess developers warn about a commercial engine based on Stockfish

#102

Post by e-v »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #101
e-v wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all 'open source' licenses are 'non-copyleft' or 'permissive' licenses.

That's why I wrote "usually" and "I might not have seen" ... Can you please _read_ what is written and consider it, before writing things, that I already know might be true?

I was simply pointing out the fact that your claim that '[u]sually "open source license" equates to MIT license and BSD licenses' is simply completely untrue. There are no 'might's or 'usually' here. Both Open Source and Free Software licenses have very clear criteria. There are no licenses which are 'usually' one or the other. They are mostly strictly equivalent.

Re: Open source chess developers warn about a commercial engine based on Stockfish

#103

Post by e-v »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #100
zelphirkalt wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, you mean _free_ software. Why not be more specific and say that in the first place?

For people who did not read the OP and claim otherwise: > ChessBase could easily comply with any open source license by linking the full source code, "any open source", which is unspecific and gives people the wrong picture, as in MIT, BSD. "linking the full source code" - how much clearer does the reference to link source code need to be?

Just because the OP was not specific enough (as they indeed weren't) doesn't make your claim true.

Re: Open source chess developers warn about a commercial engine based on Stockfish

#104

Post by zelphirkalt »

e-v wrote: post #102
zelphirkalt wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why I wrote "usually" and "I might not have seen" ... Can you please _read_ what is written and consider it, before writing things, that I already know might be true?

I was simply pointing out the fact that your claim that '[u]sually "open source license" equates to MIT license and BSD licenses' is simply completely untrue. There are no 'might's or 'usually' here. Both Open Source and Free Software licenses have very clear criteria. There are no licenses which are 'usually' one or the other. They are mostly strictly equivalent.

Well then, how about you look at the next 10-20 repositories, which interest you and which are labeled "open source" and see what their licenses are? Then you will get a picture of what is "usual". You can also increase N, if you want more indication.

Re: Open source chess developers warn about a commercial engine based on Stockfish

#105

Post by zelphirkalt »

e-v wrote: post #99
zelphirkalt wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, you mean _free_ software. Why not be more specific and say that in the first place?

The difference between 'open source software' and 'free software' has nothing to do with copyleft. The vast majority of open source software licenses are also free software licenses, and vice versa.

Check out the GNU or FSF websites. Copyleft is an important part obviously, as it is the thing preventing things to be forked, modified and then license changed. Did you ever watch a Stallman talk about the 4 freedoms and how copyleft works? If not, please do so, before writing more untrue things like: "The difference between 'open source software' and 'free software' has nothing to do with copyleft."

Re: Open source chess developers warn about a commercial engine based on Stockfish

#106

Post by zelphirkalt »

e-v wrote: post #103
zelphirkalt wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For people who did not read the OP and claim otherwise: > ChessBase could easily comply with any open source license by linking the full source code, "any open source", which is unspecific and gives people the wrong picture, as in MIT, BSD. "linking the full source code" - how much clearer does the reference to link source code need to be?

Just because the OP was not specific enough (as they indeed weren't) doesn't make your claim true.

Please cite my "claim", so that I know what you are referring to.

Re: Open source chess developers warn about a commercial engine based on Stockfish

#107

Post by thom »

cambalache wrote: post #58
cven714 wrote: post #52

ChessBase is selling this Stockfish clone for €99.90. They have also disabled comments on all of their articles so far about Fat Fritz 2. Not a good look. Related Article on Lichess (which is also open source) about Fat Fritz 2: https://lichess.org/blog/YCvy7xMAACIA8007/fat-fritz-2-is-a-r...

They are a sketchy company, from the over-zealousness to defend their "IP" to the price they demand for their yearly software, to the creepy vibe their articles about young female players have. So no sympathy from me, go stockfish.

It's also just an appalling piece of software. I wish the market for competitive chess were bigger so someone was incentivised to dethrone them.

Re: Open source chess developers warn about a commercial engine based on Stockfish

#108

Post by e-v »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #105
e-v wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference between 'open source software' and 'free software' has nothing to do with copyleft. The vast majority of open source software licenses are also free software licenses, and vice versa.

Check out the GNU or FSF websites. Copyleft is an important part obviously, as it is the thing preventing things to be forked, modified and then license changed. Did you ever watch a Stallman talk about the 4 freedoms and how copyleft works? If not, please do so, before writing more untrue things like: "The difference between 'open source software' and 'free software' has nothing to do with copyleft."

Please don't patronize me. I am responding to claims, not judging you and will ask you to please do the same.

The difference between Open Source and Free software (incidentally, I am in favour of the latter, but this is irrelevant) has to do with ethos and values, not copyleft.

From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.en.html:

"Among all programs that are open source, only a minuscule fraction are not free."

From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....:

"The two now describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, essential respect for the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand."

Re: Open source chess developers warn about a commercial engine based on Stockfish

#109

Post by zelphirkalt »

detaro wrote: post #97
zelphirkalt wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, you mean _free_ software. Why not be more specific and say that in the first place?

a) AGPL (and other Free Software licenses) are also Open Source licenses, Open Source is not "BSD or MIT" b) the comment you originally reply to didn't even claim anything about licenses "requiring" links to the source, just that doing so is one quite clear way of attributing.

Would you please read exactly what I wrote, and not go and interpret things and then make claims?

About (a): I wrote "usually equates", not "is by definition the same as BSD and MIT". Do you not understand, that this means "most people think of MIT or BSD licenses, when they hear open source"? So your point (a) is does not tell me anything I do not know, nor does it somehow "disprove" anything I wrote. You misunderstand what I wrote and make a failed rebuttal.

About (b): Read the other comment for the parts of the OP, that associate open source with source code linking.

No matter, how much open source fans claim, that free software is part of open source, it does not make it true. Open source does not contain the same garantees for freedoms and therefore cannot be a superset of free software. It is the other way around. Free software makes sure that open source requirements are met and adds requirements on top of that, to make sure user freedoms are preserved. You can go on claiming, that the free software movement is part of your open source movement as much as you want, but that does not make it true. Open source ideology is different from free software ideology and it will not be annexed by open source fans, who claim otherwise.

It seems impossible to have a discussion about this on HN, without being downvoted into oblivion. Obviously there is a rather big population on HN, which does not understand the differences of the two and feels like they need to downvote any comment, that tries to differentiate or point to imprecision in wording. Please go and watch a video of Stallman explaining the difference.

Re: Open source chess developers warn about a commercial engine based on Stockfish

#110

Post by zelphirkalt »

e-v wrote: post #108
zelphirkalt wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out the GNU or FSF websites. Copyleft is an important part obviously, as it is the thing preventing things to be forked, modified and then license changed. Did you ever watch a Stallman talk about the 4 freedoms and how copyleft works? If not, please do so, before writing more untrue things like: "The difference between 'open source software' and 'free software' has nothing to do with copyleft."

Please don't patronize me. I am responding to claims, not judging you and will ask you to please do the same. The difference between Open Source and Free software (incidentally, I am in favour of the latter, but this is irrelevant) has to do with ethos and values, not copyleft. From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.en.html : "Among all programs that are open source, only a minuscule fraction are not f…

But how does any of this make it untrue, that copyleft is an important aspect, without which the freedoms are not maintained?

You quoted 2 phrases, which are not wrong, but which do not argue against what I wrote before. Here are more quotes from the same pages:

"Second, when a program's source code carries a weak license, one without copyleft, its executables can carry additional nonfree conditions. Microsoft does this with Visual Studio, for example."

It should be quite clear, that, when I can copy a program and modify it and then release under a different license, I can circumvent user freedoms easily. Do you have any counter point to this? What exactly are you trying to tell me?

Post reply on HN