syzygy wrote:We may have had this discussion before. It is blatantly not the case that releasing code under the GPL implies permission for the author's name to be listed on the entry form of whatever engine in whatever tournament. What the GPL means is stated in the GPL itself.
You don't need legal permission to write anyones name anywhere. If someone asks me who is author of Shredder, I can write Stephan Meyer-Kahlen, without consulting Stephan in any way. And Shredder is not even open source. The GPL actually states that it is not possible to put restrictions of any kind on the software, other than that modifications must be released under GPL. Not being allowed to mention the author would be such a restriction.
(Not to mention the problem that any author's name can only be listed once in case of ICGA tournaments.)
This doesn't seem to be a problem. Eugene Nalimov, for example, used to be mentioned many times. Many engine's used his EGT probing code. This is a moot point anyway, as I don't think any of the contributors to Stockfish wants to enter an engine of his own. The real problem is exactly the opposite: no one wants to enter an engine at all.
Beside, the ICGA rule that each author can enter only once can be interpreted in a flexible way, after rounding to the nearest integer. That would make it OK for someone that enters an engine that is 100% his to still contribute 5% to each of 10 other engines. This could be supplemented with a condition that he should not have contributed more than 5% to any individual other engine.
I am pretty sure the ICGA would be willing to use this interpretation, should the need arise.
Were there anything in your argument (and a tournament organiser could put something in it by stating in the rules that the author's permission is not required for code released under GPL), then anyone could take/fork/whatever Stockfish and submit it.
It would certainly not be
illegal to do that. (I think it is actually what TCEC does...) It is purely up to ICGA to decide what they will accept. They are not likely to accept a registration anyone who has not made a real contribution. If
I were to enter Stockfish, they would most certainly refuse it. If a major contributor or even a non-contributor with a prominent position in the project would enter it, they would most certainly accept it. They are not seeking to exclude anyone.
I don't think there is less public interest in computer chess than in the Rybka days.
It is declining all the time. In the Rybka days there were also only 10 participants. Last year there were 9. In "Rybka days" the WCCC was held in Amsterdam, Beijing, Pamplona, Kanazawa and Tilburg. Amsterdam and Tilburg are in the Netherlands, indicative of the fact that no real sponsor could be found. Beijing and Kanazawa sponsored because of their interest in Go / Xiangqi / Shogi, and did not care much about the Chess that came with it. That only leaves Pamplona, which I think was mainly government sponsored because of some cultural festivities there that they felt also needed some scientific / technological dressing. Not really an encouraging record.