My two cents

[duncan]

one of the strengths of zappa was its scaling. People were saying that a 16 or 32 core zappa would be the same or stronger than a 16 or 32 rybka 2.3. Do you agree ?

If so what would you say about rybka 3. how many cores would be needed to = rybka 3.

The rybka team say that the program that they respect most is zappa. Is there any chance that you could take a one off break from retirement
to make a new version of zappa that could equal or even surpass rybka 3.

This competition and the greatly increased standards that would result would surely benefit greatly chess theory and the chess world.

The chess world is waiting for you!!!.

[tiger]

- it prevents the advance of the human kind (wrong, its goal is the opposite)
- great people in the past could not have produced their masterpieces if the GPL had existed (wrong)
- the GPL prevents the re-use of ideas (wrong)
- the GPL is another tool for big companies to lock their market (completely wrong)
- the GPL is viral, it contamines all it touches (wrong, you can use it along proprietary stuff)
- the author should not have protected his work with the GPL (Huh?)
- maybe the GPL cannot be enforced legally anyway (wrong)
- the GPL is used to fulfill dark motives (no amount of good faith can counter this argument, use it ad nauseam)
.

Since most of this list is wrong (not that people do not use these arguments, just that they are invalid arguments) I will add a few that I think are more relevant to most programmers' decision on whether to violate GPL.


1. Obeying GPL makes it harder to make the best program in the world (taking other people's code makes it easier on you, and not giving back makes it harder on them)
2. Obeying GPL makes it harder to get credit for your success (people that write their own engine from scratch [or are perceived to have done so] seem to get more public credit).
3. Obeying GPL makes it harder to turn commercial should the program turn out to be strong enough.
4. When you publish your source it is annoying to have the feeling other people are taking your ideas and giving nothing in return.

I am not claiming these are good reasons to violate GPL, but I would suggest they are probably more influential (consciously or not) on programmer decisions related to violating GPL.

I think #4 can be particularly influential, which is why I think anyone that publishes their source should be strongly respected for their contribution, independent of the conditions they put on use of their code.

-Sam

I notice that Fabien Letouzey has tried to turn commercial after publishing Fruit 2.1 under the GPL and that this attempt has apparently failed, or maybe did not yield the expected returns.

I also notice that he has almost disappeared of the field after that and has shown little interest of what happened to his own code.

I have contacted Fabien but still do not have any answer from him. I had been warned that it sometimes takes a long time for him to answer so I just hope he will answer some day.

I do not know what he thinks and do not know his motives for giving his copyright on Fruit to the FSF. I do not know why he left.

The points you have mentionned are very true and I'm wondering if he has been affected by any of them, or even all of them.

At this point I do not know. Also, I would not reveal what he thinks if he told me not to talk publicly about it.



// Christophe

I another thread someone has posted that he advised Fabien that he could not release a commercial, closed source version of Fruit. I was answering that this legal advice was wrong and that Fabien could have legally done that.

I do not know what happened, but when I submitted my post the message I was responding to had already been deleted. I can't remember the name of the poster and I'm wondering if he asked himself that his post should been removed or if something else happened. It's too bad because we have very few information about what happened to the commercial Fruit.



// Christophe

If I had released RomiChess under the GPL I might have the legal right to close the sources and go commercial, but I would never have done that. Yes, I posted that I thought that it was wrong for Fabien to have done so. A few days later I noticed that commercial Fruit was history. All I am saying is that Maybe Fabien agreed with me. Or it could just be coincidence.

I refrain to say the reason that my post was deleted.

You mean your post has been deleted because it was not acceptable?

I have seen nothing offensive in it... !?



// Christophe

[tiger]

I do not follow your logic. _I_ support the GPL, because it is a legal document, backed up by force of law. Just like patent laws. Copyright laws. I simply know that I should not copy someone else's work and then claim it to be my own. That if I copy it, I should have to abide by whatever requirements he established. He might want a royalty on copies. Happens all the time. He might say "you can have it, I don't care". Also happens. Or he might say "This is GPL. Do with it as you please, but whatever you do is also constrained by the GPL."

I can't, for the life of me, see why that would be considered difficult to understand. It isn't new. And I can't for the life of me understand how someone would think it was _their_ right to do whatever they want regardless of the GPL.

Look around Bob. You will see programmers who want to pick ideas or even blocks of code (and want to know how big a block is fair game) and users who want more free programs, only care about elo and do not care to defend authors.

They are here and have spoken: GPL? WTF, we don't care, can't be a derivative work, the elo speaks for itself, this discussion is over.

I have just realized how ridiculous we look with our code snippets. We were already at step 2 or 3. But many people quit at step 1. Oops.



// Christophe

[bnemias]

You will see programmers who want to pick ideas or even blocks of code (and want to know how big a block is fair game) ...

Yeah. Once they get here, they've completely missed the point.

Ultimately, to detect infringement, you must get down to blocks of code. But ethically, one must not borrow from copyrighted material w/out permission. The GPL just automatically grants this permission for those willing to release source along with binaries.

[Terry McCracken]

I do not follow your logic. _I_ support the GPL, because it is a legal document, backed up by force of law. Just like patent laws. Copyright laws. I simply know that I should not copy someone else's work and then claim it to be my own. That if I copy it, I should have to abide by whatever requirements he established. He might want a royalty on copies. Happens all the time. He might say "you can have it, I don't care". Also happens. Or he might say "This is GPL. Do with it as you please, but whatever you do is also constrained by the GPL."

I can't, for the life of me, see why that would be considered difficult to understand. It isn't new. And I can't for the life of me understand how someone would think it was _their_ right to do whatever they want regardless of the GPL.

Look around Bob. You will see programmers who want to pick ideas or even blocks of code (and want to know how big a block is fair game) and users who want more free programs, only care about elo and do not care to defend authors.

They are here and have spoken: GPL? WTF, we don't care, can't be a derivative work, the elo speaks for itself, this discussion is over.

I have just realized how ridiculous we look with our code snippets. We were already at step 2 or 3. But many people quit at step 1. Oops.



// Christophe

It's pretty sad isn't it? And worse, Ed signed back up after Enrique told him what was transpiring, and he derides you, Bob and Zack and then says you two made Zack a patzy!!

Ridiculous!

Terry

[tiger]

You will see programmers who want to pick ideas or even blocks of code (and want to know how big a block is fair game) ...

Yeah. Once they get here, they've completely missed the point.

Ultimately, to detect infringement, you must get down to blocks of code. But ethically, one must not borrow from copyrighted material w/out permission. The GPL just automatically grants this permission for those willing to release source along with binaries.

"Ethically" is not in everyone's dictionnary.



// Christophe

[tiger]

I do not follow your logic. _I_ support the GPL, because it is a legal document, backed up by force of law. Just like patent laws. Copyright laws. I simply know that I should not copy someone else's work and then claim it to be my own. That if I copy it, I should have to abide by whatever requirements he established. He might want a royalty on copies. Happens all the time. He might say "you can have it, I don't care". Also happens. Or he might say "This is GPL. Do with it as you please, but whatever you do is also constrained by the GPL."

I can't, for the life of me, see why that would be considered difficult to understand. It isn't new. And I can't for the life of me understand how someone would think it was _their_ right to do whatever they want regardless of the GPL.

Look around Bob. You will see programmers who want to pick ideas or even blocks of code (and want to know how big a block is fair game) and users who want more free programs, only care about elo and do not care to defend authors.

They are here and have spoken: GPL? WTF, we don't care, can't be a derivative work, the elo speaks for itself, this discussion is over.

I have just realized how ridiculous we look with our code snippets. We were already at step 2 or 3. But many people quit at step 1. Oops.



// Christophe

To make it clear I mean that step 1 is agreeing that source code comes with a license and that the license is important.

Step 2 could have been to find a hint that the license had been breached and step 3 could have been a search for evidence.

I simply overlooked the fact that many people do not care about the license. I had no idea. That's what I call quitting at step 1: "I don't want to follow your investigations and want you to stop polluting my space because I don't care about your talks about licenses".



// Christophe

[swami]

- it prevents the advance of the human kind (wrong, its goal is the opposite)
- great people in the past could not have produced their masterpieces if the GPL had existed (wrong)
- the GPL prevents the re-use of ideas (wrong)
- the GPL is another tool for big companies to lock their market (completely wrong)
- the GPL is viral, it contamines all it touches (wrong, you can use it along proprietary stuff)
- the author should not have protected his work with the GPL (Huh?)
- maybe the GPL cannot be enforced legally anyway (wrong)
- the GPL is used to fulfill dark motives (no amount of good faith can counter this argument, use it ad nauseam)
.

Since most of this list is wrong (not that people do not use these arguments, just that they are invalid arguments) I will add a few that I think are more relevant to most programmers' decision on whether to violate GPL.


1. Obeying GPL makes it harder to make the best program in the world (taking other people's code makes it easier on you, and not giving back makes it harder on them)
2. Obeying GPL makes it harder to get credit for your success (people that write their own engine from scratch [or are perceived to have done so] seem to get more public credit).
3. Obeying GPL makes it harder to turn commercial should the program turn out to be strong enough.
4. When you publish your source it is annoying to have the feeling other people are taking your ideas and giving nothing in return.

I am not claiming these are good reasons to violate GPL, but I would suggest they are probably more influential (consciously or not) on programmer decisions related to violating GPL.

I think #4 can be particularly influential, which is why I think anyone that publishes their source should be strongly respected for their contribution, independent of the conditions they put on use of their code.

-Sam

I notice that Fabien Letouzey has tried to turn commercial after publishing Fruit 2.1 under the GPL and that this attempt has apparently failed, or maybe did not yield the expected returns.

I also notice that he has almost disappeared of the field after that and has shown little interest of what happened to his own code.

I have contacted Fabien but still do not have any answer from him. I had been warned that it sometimes takes a long time for him to answer so I just hope he will answer some day.

I do not know what he thinks and do not know his motives for giving his copyright on Fruit to the FSF. I do not know why he left.

The points you have mentionned are very true and I'm wondering if he has been affected by any of them, or even all of them.

At this point I do not know. Also, I would not reveal what he thinks if he told me not to talk publicly about it.



// Christophe

I another thread someone has posted that he advised Fabien that he could not release a commercial, closed source version of Fruit. I was answering that this legal advice was wrong and that Fabien could have legally done that.

I do not know what happened, but when I submitted my post the message I was responding to had already been deleted. I can't remember the name of the poster and I'm wondering if he asked himself that his post should been removed or if something else happened. It's too bad because we have very few information about what happened to the commercial Fruit.



// Christophe

If I had released RomiChess under the GPL I might have the legal right to close the sources and go commercial, but I would never have done that. Yes, I posted that I thought that it was wrong for Fabien to have done so. A few days later I noticed that commercial Fruit was history. All I am saying is that Maybe Fabien agreed with me. Or it could just be coincidence.

I refrain to say the reason that my post was deleted.

You mean your post has been deleted because it was not acceptable?

I have seen nothing offensive in it... !?



// Christophe

Christophe, I didn't delete the post, but other mods stated that the post in question contained some allegation such as "Programmer X violated the GPL", with bold statement, near to the clone accusation, which is denied as per the Chris Whittington's sticky thread "Discussion is fine, libel not". The poster who made that post is welcome to rephrase the question without making a point that could be construed as an allegations against someone.

Regards.

[tiger]

- it prevents the advance of the human kind (wrong, its goal is the opposite)
- great people in the past could not have produced their masterpieces if the GPL had existed (wrong)
- the GPL prevents the re-use of ideas (wrong)
- the GPL is another tool for big companies to lock their market (completely wrong)
- the GPL is viral, it contamines all it touches (wrong, you can use it along proprietary stuff)
- the author should not have protected his work with the GPL (Huh?)
- maybe the GPL cannot be enforced legally anyway (wrong)
- the GPL is used to fulfill dark motives (no amount of good faith can counter this argument, use it ad nauseam)
.

Since most of this list is wrong (not that people do not use these arguments, just that they are invalid arguments) I will add a few that I think are more relevant to most programmers' decision on whether to violate GPL.


1. Obeying GPL makes it harder to make the best program in the world (taking other people's code makes it easier on you, and not giving back makes it harder on them)
2. Obeying GPL makes it harder to get credit for your success (people that write their own engine from scratch [or are perceived to have done so] seem to get more public credit).
3. Obeying GPL makes it harder to turn commercial should the program turn out to be strong enough.
4. When you publish your source it is annoying to have the feeling other people are taking your ideas and giving nothing in return.

I am not claiming these are good reasons to violate GPL, but I would suggest they are probably more influential (consciously or not) on programmer decisions related to violating GPL.

I think #4 can be particularly influential, which is why I think anyone that publishes their source should be strongly respected for their contribution, independent of the conditions they put on use of their code.

-Sam

I notice that Fabien Letouzey has tried to turn commercial after publishing Fruit 2.1 under the GPL and that this attempt has apparently failed, or maybe did not yield the expected returns.

I also notice that he has almost disappeared of the field after that and has shown little interest of what happened to his own code.

I have contacted Fabien but still do not have any answer from him. I had been warned that it sometimes takes a long time for him to answer so I just hope he will answer some day.

I do not know what he thinks and do not know his motives for giving his copyright on Fruit to the FSF. I do not know why he left.

The points you have mentionned are very true and I'm wondering if he has been affected by any of them, or even all of them.

At this point I do not know. Also, I would not reveal what he thinks if he told me not to talk publicly about it.



// Christophe

I another thread someone has posted that he advised Fabien that he could not release a commercial, closed source version of Fruit. I was answering that this legal advice was wrong and that Fabien could have legally done that.

I do not know what happened, but when I submitted my post the message I was responding to had already been deleted. I can't remember the name of the poster and I'm wondering if he asked himself that his post should been removed or if something else happened. It's too bad because we have very few information about what happened to the commercial Fruit.



// Christophe

If I had released RomiChess under the GPL I might have the legal right to close the sources and go commercial, but I would never have done that. Yes, I posted that I thought that it was wrong for Fabien to have done so. A few days later I noticed that commercial Fruit was history. All I am saying is that Maybe Fabien agreed with me. Or it could just be coincidence.

I refrain to say the reason that my post was deleted.

You mean your post has been deleted because it was not acceptable?

I have seen nothing offensive in it... !?



// Christophe

Christophe, I didn't delete the post, but other mods stated that the post in question contained some allegation such as "Programmer X violated the GPL", with bold statement, near to the clone accusation, which is denied as per the Chris Whittington's sticky thread "Discussion is fine, libel not". The poster who made that post is welcome to rephrase the question without making a point that could be construed as an allegations against someone.

Regards.

I have seen nothing like that in this post. I think I would have noticed it.

Anyway, no big deal.



// Christophe

[Michael Sherwin]

- it prevents the advance of the human kind (wrong, its goal is the opposite)
- great people in the past could not have produced their masterpieces if the GPL had existed (wrong)
- the GPL prevents the re-use of ideas (wrong)
- the GPL is another tool for big companies to lock their market (completely wrong)
- the GPL is viral, it contamines all it touches (wrong, you can use it along proprietary stuff)
- the author should not have protected his work with the GPL (Huh?)
- maybe the GPL cannot be enforced legally anyway (wrong)
- the GPL is used to fulfill dark motives (no amount of good faith can counter this argument, use it ad nauseam)
.

Since most of this list is wrong (not that people do not use these arguments, just that they are invalid arguments) I will add a few that I think are more relevant to most programmers' decision on whether to violate GPL.


1. Obeying GPL makes it harder to make the best program in the world (taking other people's code makes it easier on you, and not giving back makes it harder on them)
2. Obeying GPL makes it harder to get credit for your success (people that write their own engine from scratch [or are perceived to have done so] seem to get more public credit).
3. Obeying GPL makes it harder to turn commercial should the program turn out to be strong enough.
4. When you publish your source it is annoying to have the feeling other people are taking your ideas and giving nothing in return.

I am not claiming these are good reasons to violate GPL, but I would suggest they are probably more influential (consciously or not) on programmer decisions related to violating GPL.

I think #4 can be particularly influential, which is why I think anyone that publishes their source should be strongly respected for their contribution, independent of the conditions they put on use of their code.

-Sam

I notice that Fabien Letouzey has tried to turn commercial after publishing Fruit 2.1 under the GPL and that this attempt has apparently failed, or maybe did not yield the expected returns.

I also notice that he has almost disappeared of the field after that and has shown little interest of what happened to his own code.

I have contacted Fabien but still do not have any answer from him. I had been warned that it sometimes takes a long time for him to answer so I just hope he will answer some day.

I do not know what he thinks and do not know his motives for giving his copyright on Fruit to the FSF. I do not know why he left.

The points you have mentionned are very true and I'm wondering if he has been affected by any of them, or even all of them.

At this point I do not know. Also, I would not reveal what he thinks if he told me not to talk publicly about it.



// Christophe

I another thread someone has posted that he advised Fabien that he could not release a commercial, closed source version of Fruit. I was answering that this legal advice was wrong and that Fabien could have legally done that.

I do not know what happened, but when I submitted my post the message I was responding to had already been deleted. I can't remember the name of the poster and I'm wondering if he asked himself that his post should been removed or if something else happened. It's too bad because we have very few information about what happened to the commercial Fruit.



// Christophe

If I had released RomiChess under the GPL I might have the legal right to close the sources and go commercial, but I would never have done that. Yes, I posted that I thought that it was wrong for Fabien to have done so. A few days later I noticed that commercial Fruit was history. All I am saying is that Maybe Fabien agreed with me. Or it could just be coincidence.

I refrain to say the reason that my post was deleted.

You mean your post has been deleted because it was not acceptable?

I have seen nothing offensive in it... !?



// Christophe

Christophe, I didn't delete the post, but other mods stated that the post in question contained some allegation such as "Programmer X violated the GPL", with bold statement, near to the clone accusation, which is denied as per the Chris Whittington's sticky thread "Discussion is fine, libel not". The poster who made that post is welcome to rephrase the question without making a point that could be construed as an allegations against someone.

Regards.

I tried to keep this can of worms closed!

The mistake that Chris W. made is that it is common knowledge that X is releasing new versions of Y with out releasing the source. So, what I wrote was an interpetation and not an allegation that X is violating the GPL in doing so. How can it be an allegation when it is already common knowledge? So, I will rephrase.

It is my interpetation that Ryan is violating the GPL when he releases new versions of Fruit with out releasing the source.

Edit: I will add that I am glad that there are newer stronger versions of Fruit released by Ryan. And I am glad that he is not releasing the source. I think that the Fruit sources have done far more harm than they have done good!