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

91–100 of 136 posts

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

#91

Post by teddyh »

brutal_chaos_ wrote: post #36
gwd wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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?

Quicker, cheaper, and probably feels good in the moment. The law can work if you have time and money. Also, due to the ill view of patents on this forum, I imagine people here are simply put off from using the law and thus opt for the dopamine hit.

Free software enthusiasts ought to know better than to conflate patents and copyright.

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

#92

Post by gwd »

brutal_chaos_ wrote: post #36
gwd wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...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?

Quicker, cheaper, and probably feels good in the moment. The law can work if you have time and money. Also, due to the ill view of patents on this forum, I imagine people here are simply put off from using the law and thus opt for the dopamine hit.

> Also, due to the ill view of patents on this forum, I imagine people here are simply put off from using the law

I'm not talking about HackerNews in particular here. There's a deep divide in the Linux kernel community, for instance, about GPL enforcement. Some people, often represented by the Software Freedom Conservancy, believe in "speak softly but carry a big stick": i.e., try by negotiation to get violators into compliance, but sue when negotiation fails. Other people (including, IIRC people like Greg KH) have at some point openly stated that they would never consider a lawsuit an appropriate course of action.

I'm not sure where the Leela Zero and Stockfish people stand on this; I just sort of assumed from the tone of the article that they were in the "never sue" camp. Maybe they're in the "I didn't realize we could do that" camp, in which case I'd strongly recommend they get in touch with SFC.

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

#93

Post by zelphirkalt »

boarquantile wrote: post #88

ITT: People missing the point by making it about software licenses, when the real issue is lying about the product. ChessBase could easily comply with any open source license by linking the full source code, including the method they used to generate NN weights (if they think the license applies here as well), in a footnote. It would still be a scam, because their claims of superiority, originality ("almost from scra…

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.

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

#94

Post by piva00 »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #93
boarquantile wrote: post #88

ITT: People missing the point by making it about software licenses, when the real issue is lying about the product. ChessBase could easily comply with any open source license by linking the full source code, including the method they used to generate NN weights (if they think the license applies here as well), in a footnote. It would still be a scam, because their claims of superiority, originality ("almost from scra…

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.

AGPL?

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

#95

Post by user-the-name »

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.

People are never just ONE type of awful. It's almost always a package deal.

See also https://blog.valerieaurora.org/2017/07/18/the-al-capone-theo....

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

#96

Post by zelphirkalt »

piva00 wrote: post #94
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.

AGPL?

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

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

#97

Post by detaro »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #96
piva00 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGPL?

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.

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

#98

Post by e-v »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #93
boarquantile wrote: post #88

ITT: People missing the point by making it about software licenses, when the real issue is lying about the product. ChessBase could easily comply with any open source license by linking the full source code, including the method they used to generate NN weights (if they think the license applies here as well), in a footnote. It would still be a scam, because their claims of superiority, originality ("almost from scra…

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.

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

#99

Post by e-v »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #96
piva00 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGPL?

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.

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

#100

Post by zelphirkalt »

zelphirkalt wrote: post #96
piva00 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGPL?

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?

Post reply on HN