Gaviota tablebases, Probing Code Release (Finally)

[Dann Corbit]

Actually, it is the first open source tablebase system that is unencumbered.

Eugene's tablebase system is open source also, but has a restrictive license.

Were the Edward's tablebases encumbered?

I am not sure what the terms of use were, but I do not think that the generator code was ever released.

I never quite figured out why no one used them.

Crafty used them.

[Michel]

Open source is access to the source code.

Not quite. It also includes the right to modify and redistribute it (so Crafty is not open source)..

It is a difference in philosophy. OSI believes that open source is simply a good development model whereas the FSF believes closed source software is immoral.

So it is economics versus politics.

[Dann Corbit]

Open source is access to the source code.

Not quite. It also includes the right to modify and redistribute it (so Crafty is not open source)..

It is a difference in philosophy. OSI believes that open source is simply a good development model whereas the FSF believes closed source software is immoral.

So it is economics versus politics.

It's all politics.

GPL3 says that open source is open source if and only if all uses are also GPL3.

Public domain is open source.

Berkeley license is open source.

Copyright software [like crafty] is open source.

To attempt to redefine open source to mean "GPL3" is just plain stupid.

[bnemias]

I thought I would at least take a look at how Wikipedia defines it. And I found something surprising. Perhaps it belongs in a thread of its own, but this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

as of this writing includes ippolite in its list of open source software alongside Mozilla, Apache, Linux and FreeBSD.

I think someone here is trying to yank our chains.

[Teemu Pudas]

Why is that deserving of a facepalm?

"In 1998, a part of the free software community splintered off and began campaigning in the name of “open source.” The term was originally proposed to avoid a possible misunderstanding of the term “free software,” but it soon became associated with philosophical views quite different from those of the free software movement."

Was it really necessary to come up with another misleading term for something that's nearly the same? Also: "non-free open source".

[Michel]

So the GPL people say that GPL software is free software and BSD software is not free software.

GPL3 says that open source is open source if and only if all uses are also GPL3.

You have obviously no idea what you are talking about.

[frankp]

Miguel

Thanks. I should have recognised the compressed/uncompressed fix.

And big thanks for producing and releasing the probing code.

Frank

[Greg Strong]

This is an interesting discussion - unfortunate that it is becoming so heated.

I remember hearing Richard Stallman speak at the University of Florida when I was a student (back in 91 or 92) and I later read his writing about why we should use the GPL license, and it said that using the GPL was the way to "guarantee the maximum benefit to mankind" or a quote very, very similar to that. (Call that point "A")

The GPL prevents "closing up" the code as part of a binary-only distribution. (Call that "B")

"B" clearly reduces the likelyhood of someone being able to reuse GPL code for their purpose, so it is not at all clear to me that "B" follows from "A".

So, reading this discussion, I go to the GNU website to find the "maximum benefit to mankind" quote, and I don't find it. In fact, their position has obviously changed... http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyUseGPL says: In some special situations it can be better to use a more permissive license.

Thinking about this, my opinion is that more permissive licenses like MIT may offer more benefit to mankind, as one person using the code for a commercial use doesn't prevent someone else from reusing that same code as part of a larger project and distributing that project as GPL software. That said, I personally chose to release ChessV, (into which I sunk no less than 2000 hours of my time!!!) under the GPL.

[Dann Corbit]

This is an interesting discussion - unfortunate that it is becoming so heated.

I remember hearing Richard Stallman speak at the University of Florida when I was a student (back in 91 or 92) and I later read his writing about why we should use the GPL license, and it said that using the GPL was the way to "guarantee the maximum benefit to mankind" or a quote very, very similar to that. (Call that point "A")

The GPL prevents "closing up" the code as part of a binary-only distribution. (Call that "B")

"B" clearly reduces the likelyhood of someone being able to reuse GPL code for their purpose, so it is not at all clear to me that "B" follows from "A".

So, reading this discussion, I go to the GNU website to find the "maximum benefit to mankind" quote, and I don't find it. In fact, their position has obviously changed... http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyUseGPL says: In some special situations it can be better to use a more permissive license.

Thinking about this, my opinion is that more permissive licenses like MIT may offer more benefit to mankind, as one person using the code for a commercial use doesn't prevent someone else from reusing that same code as part of a larger project and distributing that project as GPL software. That said, I personally chose to release ChessV, (into which I sunk no less than 2000 hours of my time!!!) under the GPL.

Here is my opinion:

For some projects, GPL3 is the best possible license. For instance, I cannot imagine building GCC itself with any other license.

For some projects, Berkeley is the best possible license. For instance, with PostgreSQL, we can easily use it for commercial projects. We can also enhance the code. In fact, we did a Windows port before anyone else. When the PG folks eventually became intrested in a Windows port, we contributed our code back to them and they used some of it.

For some projects, public domain is the best possible license. Consider the snippets collection. Use the fragments any way you like.

For some projects, fully copyright ownership by the project builders is the best possible license. Why would a company spend $100 million working on a new development and then have to give it away free to anyone who asked?

Every license style has usefulness and utility which is exactly *why* we have so many choices. I have done work on projects using just about every license style also.

I do take great umbrage when someone tells me that there is one and only one true license style, that all others are evil etc., etc.

There are instances where GPL3 *is* viral, but that's fine. Choose another license. There are times where Berkeley style license does not protect the code producers investment. So use another type. Public domain allows all sorts of wicked things, including hijack of a project. So don't use public domain on projects where such things are a worry.

GPL3 excellent projects:
Linux, GCC, hamsterdb

Berkeley style excellent projects:
PostgreSQL, ACE, BSD

Commercial copyright excellent projects:
Oracle, Autocad

Public domain stykle excellent projects:
FastDB, SQLite, Snippets

P.S.
There are also chess engines that fit under each of these umbrellas. And each one has its place.

P.P.S.
I don't let anyone tell me what "open source" means to me. It means what it means.