Don wrote:tiger wrote:Don wrote:I think there was a GPL violation.
This comes from the FAQ from the free software foundation:
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later. When users non-commercially redistribute the binaries they received from you, they must pass along a copy of this written offer. This means that people who did not get the binaries directly from you can still receive copies of the source code, along with the written offer.
Is there such a written offer that comes with the distribution?
Also, these "for sale" copies fall under GPL and they must be accompanied by a license. So there is a clearly a GPL violation.
I doubt GPL was designed to allow someone to market a free work by misrepresenting it as private without a GPL license.
Is this really all we are complaining about here?
I like your question because I usually try get the heart of the matter myself and determine what it is that we are complaining about.
In this case, at least 2 questions come to mind.
1. What is it that many of us find so offensive about this?
2. What can we do about it if anything?
I cannot speak for everyone else, but it hurts my sense of justice to see someone taking the work of someone else, profiting and taking credit for it. The profit part is not nearly as offensive as the taking credit part - at least for me.
What can we do about it? Probably not much that "we" can do, but there are steps that Tord can take if that is what he decides.
So I guess the answer to your question, "is this really all we are complaining about here?" is a clear and resounding "maybe." I would like to see Tord and the Stockfish team be given full credit and for there to be full disclosure on the packaging about what is really happening.
You mean these guys just have to splash the GPL text somewhere, provide a link to Tord's source code or their own 2 lines changes and we are done?
// Christophe
Actually, yes. I don't know about the Apple issue which is another thing, but the GPL license encourages this. If you licence under GPL you are essentially giving away your rights in matters like this.
I don't think that giving proper credit is what bothers people who are shocked by the practice.
While proper credit should be given, it absolutely does not matter to the customer.
And several people, including Tord, have clearly said that they consider that charging money for Stockfish is "stealing".
It's not about giving credits.
Your question #1 is:
1. What is it that many of us find so offensive about this?
I think the answer is that some people want proper credit to be given and the GPL terms respected (access to the source code), but this is a convenient way to hide the real motive.
The real motive is that some people on this forum, the author of the copied program included, consider that selling a GPL program is stealing.
If you want to go to the heart of the matter, here is an hypothesis:
The GPL and open-source in general has been glorified and sanctified because the few users who have heard about it do not understand it and associate it with "software that I do not have to pay for".
Because users consider it is always a good thing, some programmers get sucked into it without realizing the consequences. They, too, associate GPL with something that people will not have to pay for. What a generous motive! I'm going to create an outstanding piece of software that every human being on this planet will be able to use, even people who can barely feed their family! My creation will be used in the most devastated regions of Africa, Asia, and even in the poorest suburbs of US megatowns!
I can already see the tears in your eyes.
OK now we wake up. Small entities, for example individual developpers, do not have the resources to enforce a fair use of their GPLed work.
And, anyway, the GPL explicitely allows anyone to sell GPLed work. Oops.
As a result, open source software is routinely exploited to make money and create commercial, closed programs.
GnuChess, Fruit, Crafty, Stockfish... and others.
All of these programs have been, are, and will be used to make unmerited money. It has been the case with GnuChess for the last 20 years. It has been the case with Fruit (combined with Crafty apparently) since 2005. It's already the case with Stockfish.
The open-sourcing of strong chess engines leads to the following:
- the perceived value of years of hard work is lowered
- there is less incentive to produce original work and more incentive to reproduce or even copy what is already out there
- people with no real commitment to the field can make easy money from it. As they have done no investment at all, they can sell as low as they want, effectively preventing anybody else to take the risk to further invest in research
I find it ridiculous to publish an open source program and come back later complaining that other people are making money from it.
It was bound to happen.
The heart of the problem is that it is irresponsible to publish a strong open source chess program if you do not have the time, resources and energy available to enforce a fair use of it.
As far as I can tell, only Crafty can be considered to have been relatively well protected from abuse, because of the reputation and social network surrounding its author.
// Christophe