Do patches need to be open source?

[Ras]

What about a Licence that allow you to close the source for a limited time.

What's the point to allow such leeching? There's exactly one who gains, and that is the leecher who doesn't contribute anything useful, or only when it doesn't matter anymore.

There is the possibility of dual-licencing. E.g. Qt is under GPL, but you can use it in closed source projects if you buy via the other licence. Then the original project doesn't get back code contribution, but money instead.

[syzygy]

What is clear to me is that in this world of chess programming," the trees don't let them see the forest".
Suppose an author decides to create a routine for a game, this creates a visual effect when called,
the name "impact", decides to save its code and makes a library called impact. lib, easy to run for example with a single routine.
Now to test it and make it known, he creates an open source game program under the GPL, he releases it with its statically linked. lib impact.
Of course include impact. lib in the final package
And you say it's not legal........

If the author created all the code himself, he can release it however he wants. An author can't infringe his own copyright.

But if A writes a GPLv3 libray and B writes a program linking to that library and releases one executable that includes his own code and the statically linked library, then B almost certainly infringes the copyright of A.

If A releases the library under the GPLv2, then the situation is a bit less clear.

[Ovyron]

What's the point to allow such leeching?

Can you explain this leeching philosophy you talk about?

So apparently if someone improves some code for their own use it is fine, but if they share it with a single friend and violate the licence they're turned into leeches? I don't understand.

[Ras]

Can you explain this leeching philosophy you talk about?

Building on other people's free work, making it closed and ideally ripping off money - without giving anything back to the people whose work the leecher is using, neither code nor money. And "giving to a friend" - yeah, as if.

What you get in the end are devices where the user is not even free to decide which applications he can install. Looking at you, Apple.

[Guenther]

What's the point to allow such leeching?

I don't understand.

You never understand... yet you post in all threads you find.
In my world you are just a little drama kid with too much time on his hands,
obsessed with writting each and every brain bubble down.

This is neither twitter nor a private monomanic chat.
No surprise that most people stopped posting after this troll wave
appeared in mid december.

[Ovyron]

Building on other people's free work, making it closed and ideally ripping off money - without giving anything back to the people whose work the leecher is using, neither code nor money. And "giving to a friend" - yeah, as if.

Could you restrict your usage of the word "leech" to those people and not include the whole of others that aren't interested in credit or selling their closed source improvements?

It'd actually be fine if you used the term "leech" for anyone that makes improvements but doesn't share them, but saying "if you do it and keep it to yourself is fine" is weird, because one can't be a leech for sharing.

[Ovyron]

No surprise that most people stopped posting after this troll wave
appeared in mid december.

You must asmire me greatly if you believe I have the powers to make a lot of people quit a forum by just posting, thanks! Do you have some forum that you dislike where I can practice my powers and make people run away?

Or perhaps you overestimate my impact on things. I'd advise to tone down your obsession for me.

[Ras]

but saying "if you do it and keep it to yourself is fine".

Well, nobody cares what you do at home with open source. It is, in fact, so fine that it even conforms to the GPL.

[Ovyron]

but saying "if you do it and keep it to yourself is fine".

Well, nobody cares what you do at home with open source. It is, in fact, so fine that it even conforms to the GPL.

What about edge cases? Like, cojoined twins or people with two heads, like this one? If the Right Head makes a closed source patch for Stockfish, is it turned into a "leech" if the Left head makes use of it?

If not, is it turned into a "leech" if the cojoined twin is successfully separated and becomes a different person? So the "leech" tag isn't there the day before and automatically appears when the last cell is separate?

Can the "leech" term be applied retroactively, or retroactively removed if the twins have to merge again for some reason? For that matter, if I make a closed source patch for Stockfish and give it to a friend, and the friend dies, am I still a "leech"? What if the friend dies before opening the message, or the message is lost in a server crash and is never delivered, am I still a leech for clicking "send"?

See? "Leech" is a subjective term that doesn't appear in the licence anyway, and that you're applying in nonsensical ways. If a person's friends want some functionality in Stockfish and that person implements it at home and gives them the binary, but no source because they don't care because the friends are not programmers anyway, suddenly this person is a "leech", but not if he kept the implementation to itself?

"Leech" needs a clear definition and only be used on the cases where it applies. If someone makes a few changes to Stockfish, closes the source, changes the name, and distributes it to the world claiming to be its author, then it's clearly a leech. If I implement some new "Multi PV Depth" feature into Stockfish so that it plays different moves at low depth for variety and then give this version to my mother so she can train against the engine at low depth, and play more varied games than Multicore indeterminism allows, without giving her the source (:roll:), that shouldn't make me a "leech."

[Ras]

What about edge cases?

Stop trolling.