Fruit vs. Toga poll

[Peter Aloysius]

When my program ships with a license that says that you are free to do whatever you like with it (apart from making it proprietary), what right do I have to tell you later that you are not allowed to use it in some tournament?

The license governs copyright and distribution.

And also the terms of use, which is the most important thing in this case. The license permits users to use the program to do anything they like with the program. It does not say "anything except playing in a tournament".

A third party (tournament organizer) can put up the (additional) rules he wants and no license you write can change that.

Yes, they can -- for instance by requiring that only the author operates the engine. Such a rule would make a lot of sense.

However, in the CCT, there is no such rule. Operators are allowed, as long as the author(s) accept it. In the case of free programs like mine, this permission is provided by the license. Therefore, anyone can enter with Glaurung -- or a program based on Glaurung -- in a tournament like the CCT (as has already happend this year, as you can see on the participant list). Of course only one version can be allowed to participate, and that will probably have to be the first version that registers.

Tord

umm, what happen if a program based on glaurung enter first before you, the original author, and then you decide to enter too?

Because as you said anyone didn't need your permission to enter tournament like CCT, so you can't force that first program to withdraw from tournament and you can't force the tournament director too (sure you can ask)

[Marc Lacrosse]

Hopefully the Fruit and Toga team will get together and come out with a strong combined effort to participate the best of both worlds.

This won't happen.

[Tord Romstad]

umm, what happen if a program based on glaurung enter first before you, the original author, and then you decide to enter too?

Because as you said anyone didn't need your permission to enter tournament like CCT, so you can't force that first program to withdraw from tournament and you can't force the tournament director too (sure you can ask)

Yes, you are right, but it isn't really a problem to me. I don't think I will ever want to participate in a CCT anyway.

Tord

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

When my program ships with a license that says that you are free to do whatever you like with it (apart from making it proprietary), what right do I have to tell you later that you are not allowed to use it in some tournament?

The license governs copyright and distribution.

And also the terms of use, which is the most important thing in this case. The license permits users to use the program to do anything they like with the program. It does not say "anything except playing in a tournament".

I agree. But the tournament director is free to make up additional limitations without you being involved. You can't stop that.

However, in the CCT, there is no such rule. Operators are allowed, as long as the author(s) accept it. In the case of free programs like mine, this permission is provided by the license. Therefore, anyone can enter with Glaurung -- or a program based on Glaurung -- in a tournament like the CCT (as has already happend this year, as you can see on the participant list). Of course only one version can be allowed to participate, and that will probably have to be the first version that registers.

If a tournament director asks you which copy of Glaurung you allowed, you will answer "all", and it's back to the tournament director to make a decision. In all likelyhood, they'll pick the first to register since that's a sane decision.

I don't see any problems here. YOU are still allowing people to do whatever they like with your code.

[Tord Romstad]

When my program ships with a license that says that you are free to do whatever you like with it (apart from making it proprietary), what right do I have to tell you later that you are not allowed to use it in some tournament?

The license governs copyright and distribution.

And also the terms of use, which is the most important thing in this case. The license permits users to use the program to do anything they like with the program. It does not say "anything except playing in a tournament".

I agree. But the tournament director is free to make up additional limitations without you being involved. You can't stop that.

Exactly.

If a tournament director asks you which copy of Glaurung you allowed, you will answer "all", and it's back to the tournament director to make a decision. In all likelyhood, they'll pick the first to register since that's a sane decision.

I don't see any problems here. YOU are still allowing people to do whatever they like with your code.

I also don't see any problems, and I agree with your interpretations.

Tord

[Rolf]

When my program ships with a license that says that you are free to do whatever you like with it (apart from making it proprietary), what right do I have to tell you later that you are not allowed to use it in some tournament?

The license governs copyright and distribution.

And also the terms of use, which is the most important thing in this case. The license permits users to use the program to do anything they like with the program. It does not say "anything except playing in a tournament".

A third party (tournament organizer) can put up the (additional) rules he wants and no license you write can change that.

Yes, they can -- for instance by requiring that only the author operates the engine. Such a rule would make a lot of sense.

However, in the CCT, there is no such rule. Operators are allowed, as long as the author(s) accept it. In the case of free programs like mine, this permission is provided by the license. Therefore, anyone can enter with Glaurung -- or a program based on Glaurung -- in a tournament like the CCT (as has already happend this year, as you can see on the participant list). Of course only one version can be allowed to participate, and that will probably have to be the first version that registers.

Tord

Tord, there is a logical lack or failure in the above. First of all my compliments to you, the author of such a good Glaurung program. I wished you would use it yourself in tournaments.

What means proprietary? Are you arguing that if that is forbidden to do that a user or lover of your program could still appear in tournaments as if it were his/her own program? Apparently not!

Where would you disagree? On the new users' side or on the tournament organisers' side?

I see an aspect in all this that is based on a logical fault. People might argue that if it's allowed for Rybka then why not for Glaurung too? Why not for Toga too?

The fault is to compare a commercial program like Rybka, a provable and singular creation by its identified author with all the commercial laws, and many user tweaked versions of free programs like yours for example. If Toga were comparably a singular entity like Rybka then why it's not been sold like Rybka? Apparently because then under commercial laws it would came out that the whole entity isnt singular, at least this is what I suspect.

And finally there is another fallacy resulting out of the typical tradition of computerchess from the times of the wooden hardware chess players. Also then users in thousands would have liked to participate in competitions like owners so to speak. But that worked only for private but not in championships. But it's true that the companies themselves tried to enter their product several times in parallel mode. Perhaps this is now the reason for what we see in discussions like this here.

You argue like a company at the old times which had said that they wouldnt take part, but the users might give it a try. In short why dont you participate yourself? Because only you had the proprietary right for Glaurung? It cant be a time aspect because what you spend in debates like that isnt less than what you had to invest for a typical CCT event, no?

Or, if I am totally wrong, again like others would say, why are you so interested in such a topic at all because I never see Fabien in these debates. Dont you realise that your open source project which says freedom of use, without your own tournament interest/participation looks strange the moment you then argue and dominate in such discussions? Dont you see this contradiction?

[Tord Romstad]

Tord, there is a logical lack or failure in the above. First of all my compliments to you, the author of such a good Glaurung program. I wished you would use it yourself in tournaments.

Which I already do. Just not in the CCT.

What means proprietary?

The definitions of the terms "proprietary" and "free" with respect to computer software have well established meanings. Read through the documents at the FSF website if you are interested.

Are you arguing that if that is forbidden to do that a user or lover of your program could still appear in tournaments as if it were his/her own program? Apparently not!

I can't even parse the question, so I can't give an answer. The same thing applies to the next few questions from your side: I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm sorry.

Where would you disagree? On the new users' side or on the tournament organisers' side?

I see an aspect in all this that is based on a logical fault. People might argue that if it's allowed for Rybka then why not for Glaurung too? Why not for Toga too?

The fault is to compare a commercial program like Rybka, a provable and singular creation by its identified author with all the commercial laws, and many user tweaked versions of free programs like yours for example. If Toga were comparably a singular entity like Rybka then why it's not been sold like Rybka? Apparently because then under commercial laws it would came out that the whole entity isnt singular, at least this is what I suspect.

And finally there is another fallacy resulting out of the typical tradition of computerchess from the times of the wooden hardware chess players. Also then users in thousands would have liked to participate in competitions like owners so to speak. But that worked only for private but not in championships. But it's true that the companies themselves tried to enter their product several times in parallel mode. Perhaps this is now the reason for what we see in discussions like this here.

You argue like a company at the old times which had said that they wouldnt take part, but the users might give it a try. In short why dont you participate yourself?

Finally a question I understand and can answer: I don't play in the CCT because I think it's an awfully dull tournament. I prefer tournaments where I can meet the programmers face to face and go out and have a dinner or a few beers afterwards. Online tournaments are unsatisfactory in general, and CCT even more so, because the ICC is such a noisy place to play.

Because only you had the proprietary right for Glaurung? It cant be a time aspect because what you spend in debates like that isnt less than what you had to invest for a typical CCT event, no?

I spend far less time reading and posting to the CCC over a week than I would have spent in a single weekend playing the CCT. Besides, the amount of time is not the only important thing. I visit CCC briefly several times per day when I want a little break from what I am doing. This is very different from spending several hours Saturday and Sunday night on a chess server. Like most people, I prefer to socialize in real life on Saturday and Sunday night.

Or, if I am totally wrong, again like others would say, why are you so interested in such a topic at all because I never see Fabien in these debates.

Fabien isn't doing computer chess at the moment and doesn't even read this forum, so I don't see why you are surprised not to see any comments from him.

Dont you realise that your open source project which says freedom of use, without your own tournament interest/participation looks strange the moment you then argue and dominate in such discussions? Dont you see this contradiction?

I don't dominate it at all. The only reason I posted at all in this thread was that Bob compared the case of Fruit/Toga to the case of Glaurung/Stockfish and Crafty/some private Crafty clone. I pointed out that the three cases are entirely different, and that the case of Fruit/Toga is the only one which is worth discussing. I would have preferred to leave the discussion there, but other people keep bringing up me and my program again and again, even though it is irrelevant and without interest in the current thread.

Tord

[bob]

It would really be a shame if Toga Cluster could not participate as it is an extremely interesting project. But I can understand why people would think the participation of both Fruit and Toga would be a problem. Imagine Rybka 3 Default, Rybka 3 Human and Rybka 3 Dynamic all participating at the same time. That would cause an uproar I think, as the most likely outcome would be first 3 places for Rybka 3's.

Hopefully the Fruit and Toga team will get together and come out with a strong combined effort to participate the best of both worlds.

That's my feeling as well. Personally, I'd be happy to have both playing. But it opens a door that can never be closed again. And we'd end up with dozens of derivative engines and no fair way of dealing with them.

[bob]

As far as tournaments go, all of the rules prohibited clones prior to
the release of Fruit much less Toga. The only reason I could see the
ICGA allowing cluster Toga in was to allow a scientific experiment on
the clustering of a chess program.

This is completely false! Clones have always been allowed, as they should be. Cluster Toga was allowed because there was permission from all of its authors, including Fabien.

Requiring permissions from the author(s) and not allowing one author in multiple teams solves the problem completely.

Yes, that is exactly what I proposed. Very simple.
Every entry should list the name of people that contribute it with chess playing code (authors) and their permission.

Miguel
PS: I also believe that this should apply to Nalimov EGTBs. The EGTB code in most engines was cut an pasted from him. is that correct? I did not get an answer to this question yet.

If the original author allows a clone to enter, what possible objection could you have to a clone entering? How is this different from a program which is a team effort?

If there are many clones of a single program, the decision might be difficult for the original author and he might have to disappoint many people. Well, though luck! Go write your own program, lazy bastards

The original code was developed inside Crafty. Once we decided on how to compress, the compression blocksize, etc, Eugene started to let others use the code, which was always his original intent. He needed a guinea pig and I volunteered to help. But it was never "just for Crafty" even though he contributed several bits and pieces of assembly code before I started doing it as inline gcc rather than as separate asm files.

So, in other engines, most of the probing code will be a cut and paste from the one you describe. Is that correct?

Miguel

I don't even think it is cut and paste. All the work is in egtb.cpp. One has to write (rewrite) probe.c from Crafty to take the other program's board structure and convert it to when egtb.cpp needs to compute the Godel number and do the probe.

So, every program that supports Nalimov EGTBs has the module egtb.cpp exactly as it is in crafty. Right?

Miguel

So far as I know, yes. I believe someone converted it to C at some point, but I don't remember any details...

[bob]

When my program ships with a license that says that you are free to do whatever you like with it (apart from making it proprietary), what right do I have to tell you later that you are not allowed to use it in some tournament?

The license governs copyright and distribution.

And also the terms of use, which is the most important thing in this case. The license permits users to use the program to do anything they like with the program. It does not say "anything except playing in a tournament".

I agree. But the tournament director is free to make up additional limitations without you being involved. You can't stop that.

However, in the CCT, there is no such rule. Operators are allowed, as long as the author(s) accept it. In the case of free programs like mine, this permission is provided by the license. Therefore, anyone can enter with Glaurung -- or a program based on Glaurung -- in a tournament like the CCT (as has already happend this year, as you can see on the participant list). Of course only one version can be allowed to participate, and that will probably have to be the first version that registers.

If a tournament director asks you which copy of Glaurung you allowed, you will answer "all", and it's back to the tournament director to make a decision. In all likelyhood, they'll pick the first to register since that's a sane decision.

I don't see any problems here. YOU are still allowing people to do whatever they like with your code.

If I were the TD, my decision would be simple. I would defer to the original author. If he does not wish to make the decision, then I would go with "first-come, first served" and move on.