TalkChess.com

Ozymandias wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:30 pm

dkappe wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:04 pm

Ozymandias wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 12:43 pm

dkappe wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 9:06 pm

The people to whom you sold copies of GPL software are just as free as you are to make copies and sell them for whatever price they feel is right, including a price equal to zero.

Of course the network weights are not covered by the GPL but by whatever license ChessBase applies to it.

Of course? If you need GPL software (modified) to obtain them, how can they be outside the purview of the GPL license? Shouldn't it be possible to sell them back, as stated in the quoted text?

Without getting into a long legal wrangling, it’s analogous to documents or spreadsheets written with GPL software, or even code that is compiled with a GPL’d compiler. They aren’t covered by the GPL.

It's a bad analogy. In addition to what I already explained, you need this particular GPL software to make any use of the weights, at all.

Legal discussions surely have a little bit of internal coherence. So, what would make anyone place Lc0 on the same category as an office suite?

You need GPL software to use them, not obtain them, much like a RTF document or a python script.

The network weights are produced not by lc0 (the engine), but by a separate project built on tensorflow. In order to experiment with different ML techniques, I’ve written a pytorch-based network trainer than can and has produced networks that run in lc0, Scorpio, etc. Are they covered under Python’s license, Pytorch’s BSD license, tensorflow’s license, Scorpio’s license, lc0’s license, or lczero-training’s license? I eagerly await your expert opinion.

dkappe wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:36 pm

Ozymandias wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:30 pm

dkappe wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 6:04 pm

Ozymandias wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 12:43 pm

dkappe wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2019 9:06 pm

The people to whom you sold copies of GPL software are just as free as you are to make copies and sell them for whatever price they feel is right, including a price equal to zero.

Of course the network weights are not covered by the GPL but by whatever license ChessBase applies to it.

Of course? If you need GPL software (modified) to obtain them, how can they be outside the purview of the GPL license? Shouldn't it be possible to sell them back, as stated in the quoted text?

Without getting into a long legal wrangling, it’s analogous to documents or spreadsheets written with GPL software, or even code that is compiled with a GPL’d compiler. They aren’t covered by the GPL.

It's a bad analogy. In addition to what I already explained, you need this particular GPL software to make any use of the weights, at all.

Legal discussions surely have a little bit of internal coherence. So, what would make anyone place Lc0 on the same category as an office suite?

You need GPL software to use them, not obtain them, much like a RTF document or a python script.

The network weights are produced not by lc0 (the engine), but by a separate project built on tensorflow. In order to experiment with different ML techniques, I’ve written a pytorch-based network trainer than can and has produced networks that run in lc0, Scorpio, etc. Are they covered under Python’s license, Pytorch’s BSD license, tensorflow’s license, Scorpio’s license, lc0’s license, or lczero-training’s license? I eagerly await your expert opinion.

Using them is quite important, otherwise, what's the point? BTW, notice I mentioned "Lc0" or "GPL software", I never said "engine". Lc0 is all of it, the server, the client, the engine and the weights, which is kind of my point, if Lc0 is covered by GPL, all of it is.

I don't know if that's "expert" enough for you, but I never wanted to be taken for one. There's a lot of those running around, I just try to bring some common sense into the conversation, something which isn't in so much abundance nowadays.

Ozymandias wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:57 pm
I don't know if that's "expert" enough for you, but I never wanted to be taken for one. There's a lot of those running around, I just try to bring some common sense into the conversation, something which isn't in so much abundance nowadays.

Common sense? You’re clearly not a lawyer (insert obligatory lawyer joke here).

Having developed commercial software for a living for a variety of clients, I’ve sat in enough conference rooms with lawyers and entrepreneurs. Your magical thinking about the the GPL covering “everything” and being able to prevent users from conduct you deem objectionable (like distributing augmented reality porn, for example), is far from uncommon. Watching lawyers disabuse the product owner of these notions is like watching a boy pull the wings off of a butterfly.

There is nothing in the GPL about number of other software options or number of possible outputs. It seems you have some idea about some very restrictive license and assume it's what GPL is like. It's neither sanity not reality. Just read the license, it's not that long.

dkappe wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 8:11 pm

Ozymandias wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 7:57 pm
I don't know if that's "expert" enough for you, but I never wanted to be taken for one. There's a lot of those running around, I just try to bring some common sense into the conversation, something which isn't in so much abundance nowadays.

Common sense? You’re clearly not a lawyer (insert obligatory lawyer joke here).

Having developed commercial software for a living for a variety of clients, I’ve sat in enough conference rooms with lawyers and entrepreneurs. Your magical thinking about the the GPL covering “everything” and being able to prevent users from conduct you deem objectionable (like distributing augmented reality porn, for example), is far from uncommon. Watching lawyers disabuse the product owner of these notions is like watching a boy pull the wings off of a butterfly.

You're right, I'm not a lawyer. I'm a philosopher, and language is of some interest to me. That's why, when you write something like the phrase I originally quoted, I feel compelled to ask for some clarification. If your answer is that this is the legality of the situation, I can only say that the inclusion of the word "legally" would've avoided confusion.

As for my ideas about GPL, I only know about it what I read in forums. I certainly don't think they would fit under that particular umbrella, then again, maybe the people who posted about it did, so some of the "magic" could've trickled down.

Harvey Williamson wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 12:57 pm This could be a clue as to what will be the engine in fritz 17
https://chesstroid.blogspot.com/2017/11 ... ngine.html

Interesting, as I've suspected for the last few months that Ginkgo was a prime candidate to transition into the next Fritz version (as a new Fritz was expected later this year.)
It would follow the blueprint used for Fritz 14, taking a private engine (Pandix) and morphing it into a new Fritz.

Also, it could be worth noting that Ginkgo had been listed on CCRl 40/40 as a private engine, but then it was
pulled from the list just around the same time as the Fritz 17 discussion first sprang up.

Your clue dovetails perfectly into this picture.

OneTrickPony wrote: ↑Sun Nov 03, 2019 10:56 pm There is nothing in the GPL about number of other software options or number of possible outputs. It seems you have some idea about some very restrictive license and assume it's what GPL is like. It's neither sanity not reality. Just read the license, it's not that long.

Neither did I say there was. I was pointing out the flaws in your analogy. Maybe something like that flies among lawyers, but it was a bad analogy and will continue to be until the meaning of the word is changed.

carldaman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:11 am Also, it could be worth noting that Ginkgo had been listed on CCRl 40/40 as a private engine, but then it was
pulled from the list just around the same time as the Fritz 17 discussion first sprang up.

I don't know why that was, I wouldn't read anything into it. Graham asked for it to be removed and it was. They were his games. I'm not sure why it was there at all, we don't have private engines on the 40/40 list.

Modern Times wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 7:01 am

carldaman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:11 am Also, it could be worth noting that Ginkgo had been listed on CCRl 40/40 as a private engine, but then it was
pulled from the list just around the same time as the Fritz 17 discussion first sprang up.

I don't know why that was, I wouldn't read anything into it. Graham asked for it to be removed and it was. They were his games. I'm not sure why it was there at all, we don't have private engines on the 40/40 list.

I wanted to see its CCRL rating.

Graham Banks wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 7:10 am

Modern Times wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 7:01 am

carldaman wrote: ↑Mon Nov 04, 2019 12:11 am Also, it could be worth noting that Ginkgo had been listed on CCRl 40/40 as a private engine, but then it was
pulled from the list just around the same time as the Fritz 17 discussion first sprang up.

I don't know why that was, I wouldn't read anything into it. Graham asked for it to be removed and it was. They were his games. I'm not sure why it was there at all, we don't have private engines on the 40/40 list.

I wanted to see its CCRL rating.

which was ............ ?

just to get an idea about this new Fritz