111–120 of 136 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah if they pull it they need to release current modifications, but not future ones.
And they only need to provide the modifications to people who downloaded it I think.
Everyone is permitted and encouraged to modify and improve code from Stockfish/Leela while giving credit; that is the intent of open-source software. 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 misunderst…
I'd strongly disagree with that too.
> 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.
Free Software adds additional requirements, yes. Which is why it can be usefully thought of as a subset of Open Source: AFAIK all common Free Software licenses are recognized as Open Source licenses, and give you the rights expected from an Open Source license, whereas many Open Source licenses do not qualify to be Free Software (and do not guarantee what's expected from Free Software). Certainly in my circles, the vast majority of people working on GPLed software describe what they do as "Open Source".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 misunderst…
> this means "most people think of MIT or BSD licenses, when they hear open source" I'd strongly disagree with that too. > 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. Free Softwar…
As for the second part: Time for first hand source: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
(quote start)
"“Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same software (or nearly so), does it matter which name you use? Yes, because different words convey different ideas. While a free program by any other name would give you the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends above all on teaching people to value freedom. If you want to help do this, it is essential to speak of “free software.”
We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being mislabeled as open source supporters. What we advocate is not “open source,” and what we oppose is not “closed source”. To make this clear, we avoid using those terms."
(quote end)
People intentionally making free software do not see themselves as merely open source software making. They do not wish to be mislabeled. Is that not enough for you? I mean, what more do you need, for me to convince you, that this subset-superset-structure, you are proposing, is not according to the definition of what free software is?
Now I don't know in what circles you work, but I suggest, that the people take another look at the definitions and begin distinguishing, if they have any interest in using the correct terms. Why is that important? Well, another quote from the same page:
(quote start)
Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a “marketing campaign for free software,” which would appeal to business executives by highlighting the software's practical benefits, while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might not like to hear. Other supporters flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and social values. Whichever their views, when campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those values. The term “open source” quickly became associated with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as making or having powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same association. Most discussion of “open source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's a typical example. A minority of supporters of open source do nowadays say freedom is part of the issue, but they are not very visible among the many that don't.
(quote end)
Thank you for now engaging in an actual discussion about the subject and bringing arguments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think it is always feasible to make the learning process entirely deterministic, especially for distributed reinforcement learning.
Binaries weren't historically deterministic either. This isn't a problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 misunderst…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
...and if they're breaking the license, don't "name and shame"; send them a C&D. And if that's ignored, sue them. Seriously, there's some attitude in open source circles that looks down on using the law to achieve compliance. Why bother putting up such a carefully thought-out legal document, and then whining on a blog when it's broken, instead of using it for its intended purpose -- a court of law?
Because
* legal action is expensive, time-consuming, and may be simply impossible (or equivalently impracticable) depending on where you, or the other parties, reside/do business; and
* legal documents do not in actuality exist to enable someone's courtroom drama fantasies. In anticipation of civil disagreement, competent lawyers will advise that adversarial proceedings are a last resort, not a first measure, and draft documents accordingly.
In fact, isn't the position evaluation pretty much the only thing that makes Stockfish different from Leela, the rest being just some tweaks on top of traversing the decision tree? And if it now seems that NN is better at this after all, what is the purpose of having these 2 engines at all, shouldn't all the future work just be moving over to Leela?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Binaries weren't historically deterministic either. This isn't a problem.
They did the same thing though. Two differently trained neural networks will have different outcomes, in this case they'd pick different chess moves in some special cases.
Add in parallel linking, and program behavior can change.