Trusted testers wanted

[Tord Romstad]

What is wrong is that it simply violates the GPL. Could I take your code, modify it, then post a request for "team members" and then get say 1,000 volunteers and I pick 1/2 of them and distribute your program to them and tell them they can not distribute it to anyone else?

Where is this question coming from? This is not what Volker intends to do at all. He wants to find a small number of people he knows well and trust who wants to join him in developing and testing the program. The previously quoted excerpt from the GPL FAQ clearly says that it is allowed for an organization to have their own privately modified version of a GPL program without distributing it.

There were long discussions about this very idea back when the GPL was created, and then when it was modified to version 2 and then version 3. The explicit intent is that when a program is based on a GPL code, whether it is sold or given away is irrelevant, the source must be released to the general public.

Absolutely not. Neither the program nor the source code must be released to the public. The GPL only says that if you give someone outside your organization a copy of the program, you must also give the user the source code (or an easy way to obtain the source code), and to redistribute the program (or modified versions of it) under the GPL.

You don't have to take my word for this, you can once again read it in the GPL FAQ:

If I know someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I demand he give me a copy?

No. The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of the program if he chooses to do so. He also has the right not to redistribute the program, if that is what he chooses.

In other words, neither you, I nor anyone else have the right to demand a copy of Volker's modified program from him or anyone else in his hypothetical team. He or they can continue to keep it private forever if they desire.

Tord

[Volker Annuss]

What is wrong is that it simply violates the GPL. Could I take your code, modify it, then post a request for "team members" and then get say 1,000 volunteers and I pick 1/2 of them and distribute your program to them and tell them they can not distribute it to anyone else? Of course not. The GPL explicitly forbids that.

That's why I explicitly say that testers have all the rights the GPL gives them. I only ask them not to give it away. They are still free to do so, and if my code becomes public, that's the price I have to pay for doing what I did.

The explicit intent is that when a program is based on a GPL code, whether it is sold or given away is irrelevant, the source must be released to the general public.

No, when I give away a GPLed program, I am only responsible to those I give it to.

In fact, the distributor has a legal obligation to continue to release the source for 3 years _after_ the project ends...

Not if you distribute your program together with the source code or if you give the source code only.

In fact I already gave away two programs under GPL V2 long ago that have never been released to the general public. There is no need to do so, as long as I am there to change them when required. And when for whatever reason I am no longer able to do so, the reciepients can find another programmer to do the work for them. An FSF member confirmed, that it is OK to do so. The difference to this case is, that those programs were 100% my code.

[Tord Romstad]

I have not looked at stockfish and don't intend to.

You probably should: It already seems to be far stronger than Glaurung, and unlike Glaurung, Stockfish is likely to keep getting updated and improved in the future.

I simply want to see the GPL followed for programs released under the GPL.

As do I, of course. But in this case, everything is OK. The GPL does not require that you release your program to the public, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread.

Tord

[Volker Annuss]

Am I the only one who thinks that original poster was intending to be ironic or funny?

A bit ironic - yes, funny - no. I am really looking for trusted testers.

My first reason to for creating a Glaurung clone was a remark by Marco Costalba how hard it is to improve Glaurung or Toga by 20 ELO. In my opinion it is relatively easy for anyone who wrote a chess engine from scratch to improve Glaurung (but not Toga) by 20 ELO. I wrote so in another thread some weeks ago, and I wanted to show it, so I started "cloning".

Until now it really was not hard because I could copy and paste the hard part of the code from my own engine. Together with some other tricks concerning reductions and threat detection I am quite sure I could make it over the 20 ELO bar, but it's more interesting for me, to work on my own engine again.

I'm assuming that he doesn't have the derivative, atleast not prior to creating this thread.

You are right and you are wrong. At the moment, my working version still gives the name Glaurung 2.2 and not Glaurung 2.2 NNT. The important changes really exist.

* the claim that it's 5-10 elo more than Glaurung. Who knows if it turns out to be -5 elo?

Nobody knows. Not even I know, because I have not played enough games. Maybe it is already 20 ELO. That's one reason why I am looking for testers.

* Asking for interested and trusted testers (oh yeah, for an alleged +5 elo derivative?)

Not to forget, the tester must also be able to compile the version for himself because Glaurung 2.2 NNT will only be sent as source code.
This is required to get two comparable versions Glaurung 2.2 and Glaurung 2.2 NNT without the need to send it to some compiler expert.

* Changes: not too convincing, atleast for a non-programmer anyway.

But convincing for programmers.

* Email address - that begins with Glaurungclone@ is a satire for someone who is looking for serious trusted testers.

My offer is targeted to testers who see no conflict between serious testing and calling that version a clone.

* the claim that if he doesn't send the derivative to someone, it doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't trust them - implies, that he doesn't have anything to offer in the first place.

Even if I don't find the testers I am looking for, I will send my changes to one person who has not even asked for it, guess who.

* His participation in other thread where he criticized someone who is pro-derivative.

Yes, and I will continue to do so. On the other hand I must admit, that Marco Costalba's role in this thread is a very positive surprise for me.

Edit: removed the word "time" before "moment" and added the word "again"

[ilari]

And, in fact, just making the source publicly available on a web page or whatever is not good enough. You have to make a CD/DVD available (at nominal cost). And you are even required to maintain this for (I believe) 3 years beyond the end-of-life of the project...

The GPL is not a kid's agreement, it is a well-written and extremely clear set of guidelines that are not optional.

Just to clarify this Bob. You need to make a CD/DVD available?

So those who make Toga, Stockfish and Smaug are in violation of the GPL because they don't?

Christopher

If the software is only distributed over the Internet, the copyleft is satisfied if the source code is also available only on the Net. So the distributors of Toga, Stockfish and Smaug are free to ignore any CD/DVD requests.

[mcostalba]

My first reason to for creating a Glaurung clone was a remark by Marco Costalba how hard it is to improve Glaurung or Toga by 20 ELO. In my opinion it is relatively easy for anyone who wrote a chess engine from scratch to improve Glaurung (but not Toga) by 20 ELO. I wrote so in another thread some weeks ago, and I wanted to show it, so I started "cloning".

I'm really surprised that you start what is for sure an effort just for a sentence of mine. I never imagined to be able to move someone in an effort to counterproof one statement of mine.

Well, thanks for your consideration of my opinions, seriously. I'm not joking.

I really hope you succed, also because I hope that, if you have success in internal testing, you will be tempted to relase to some official and independent testing team as CEGT, so that you will need to release the sources and I will steal them for sure

Good luck !
Marco

[bob]

And, in fact, just making the source publicly available on a web page or whatever is not good enough. You have to make a CD/DVD available (at nominal cost). And you are even required to maintain this for (I believe) 3 years beyond the end-of-life of the project...

The GPL is not a kid's agreement, it is a well-written and extremely clear set of guidelines that are not optional.

Just to clarify this Bob. You need to make a CD/DVD available?

So those who make Toga, Stockfish and Smaug are in violation of the GPL because they don't?

Christopher

That is in the GPL, yes. An internet link and such is considered fine, but there has to be an option to obtain the source through another way.

As an example, the GPL recognizes that distributing the source is not always practical, because of the device being used. A computer controlling a network router, for example, probably will not have enough memory so that any GPL code that was used/modified can be included. So including the source with the product is not an explicit requirement, but making the source code available is. And they discuss both network availability, but also require an alternative although it does not have to be completely free (A DVD is not zero-cost, nor is shipping, of course).

I can probably track this down, I remember the discussion from years ago when this was being refined. Some vendors complained about the 3-year after end-of-life requirement, and a discussion about bankruptcy also led to a lot of debate (can a company that no longer exists be required to provide source code?)...

[bob]

And, in fact, just making the source publicly available on a web page or whatever is not good enough. You have to make a CD/DVD available (at nominal cost). And you are even required to maintain this for (I believe) 3 years beyond the end-of-life of the project...

The GPL is not a kid's agreement, it is a well-written and extremely clear set of guidelines that are not optional.

Just to clarify this Bob. You need to make a CD/DVD available?

So those who make Toga, Stockfish and Smaug are in violation of the GPL because they don't?

Christopher

If the software is only distributed over the Internet, the copyleft is satisfied if the source code is also available only on the Net. So the distributors of Toga, Stockfish and Smaug are free to ignore any CD/DVD requests.

That's a sticky issue. In that _someone_ may well distribute the code in another way, such as including it on a DVD (like linux distros, for example).

[bob]

What is wrong is that it simply violates the GPL. Could I take your code, modify it, then post a request for "team members" and then get say 1,000 volunteers and I pick 1/2 of them and distribute your program to them and tell them they can not distribute it to anyone else? Of course not. The GPL explicitly forbids that.

That's why I explicitly say that testers have all the rights the GPL gives them. I only ask them not to give it away. They are still free to do so, and if my code becomes public, that's the price I have to pay for doing what I did.

The explicit intent is that when a program is based on a GPL code, whether it is sold or given away is irrelevant, the source must be released to the general public.

No, when I give away a GPLed program, I am only responsible to those I give it to.

In fact, the distributor has a legal obligation to continue to release the source for 3 years _after_ the project ends...

Not if you distribute your program together with the source code or if you give the source code only.

In fact I already gave away two programs under GPL V2 long ago that have never been released to the general public. There is no need to do so, as long as I am there to change them when required. And when for whatever reason I am no longer able to do so, the reciepients can find another programmer to do the work for them. An FSF member confirmed, that it is OK to do so. The difference to this case is, that those programs were 100% my code.

The point is, what you are asking is exactly the opposite of what the GPL was created to accomplish. The GPL says that if you use GPL code, and you distribute the result to anyone, the modified GPL source code must also be made available. To the general public, not just to the ones that get the product.

It seems obvious to me...

[bob]

I have not looked at stockfish and don't intend to.

You probably should: It already seems to be far stronger than Glaurung, and unlike Glaurung, Stockfish is likely to keep getting updated and improved in the future.

I simply want to see the GPL followed for programs released under the GPL.

As do I, of course. But in this case, everything is OK. The GPL does not require that you release your program to the public, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread.

Tord

No, but it does mean that if you release it at all, you have to release the modified GPL code to the public.