Trusted testers wanted

[henkf]

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.

True, but at the same time you seem to have a very liberal concept of 'releasing'. Volker is trying to form a team and started a application procedure to accomplish this. After accepting a member in his team he will send them the executable and sources for team use. I reckon this is how also big companies operate. I know your program is not GPL, but if it was, following your logic, since you are distributing your development program to all the nodes of your university cluster, which i guess is not your private property, you would have to release it there under a different licence, otherwise you would be obliged to release it to all.

[Tord Romstad]

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

No!

The GPL doesn't even mention the word "release". It talks about "conveying" the program, while the FAQ uses the terms "convey" and "distribute". The GPL requires that you make the modified source code available to all those you distribute the program to. It does not require that the the source code is available to the public.

Tord

[Dirt]

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

No!

The GPL doesn't even mention the word "release". It talks about "conveying" the program, while the FAQ uses the terms "convey" and "distribute". The GPL requires that you make the modified source code available to all those you distribute the program to. It does not require that the the source code is available to the public.

Tord

I suppose the idea that the source has to be publicly released comes from the confusing GPLv2 rules for distributing the executable without the source, which requires the source to then be available to anyone who is willing to pay the cost of conveying it (nowadays on the web that's usually rounded to zero). If you always included the source then that rule didn't apply.

[glorfindel]

* 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.

If that is really your intention, then your way of writing the first message did not reflect this intention well, and this is probably why all this fuss was created.

[Marc Lacrosse]

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

No!

The GPL doesn't even mention the word "release". It talks about "conveying" the program, while the FAQ uses the terms "convey" and "distribute". The GPL requires that you make the modified source code available to all those you distribute the program to. It does not require that the the source code is available to the public.

Tord

This is true, but very far from the initial point and I do not contest what you say here.
The initial point is not that anybody asked Volker to release his version to everybody.
He is perfectly allowed to choose those to whom he will send anything of his liking.
The initial point is that if he chooses to send his modified version of a GPL program to someone else then he is not allowed in any way to restrict further redistribution by these persons to anyone else, be it in unchanged or modified form.
Asking for a promise not to redistribute further is a major breach of the whole GPL license.

Marc

[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.

True, but at the same time you seem to have a very liberal concept of 'releasing'. Volker is trying to form a team and started a application procedure to accomplish this. After accepting a member in his team he will send them the executable and sources for team use. I reckon this is how also big companies operate. I know your program is not GPL, but if it was, following your logic, since you are distributing your development program to all the nodes of your university cluster, which i guess is not your private property, you would have to release it there under a different licence, otherwise you would be obliged to release it to all.

I don't have a "liberal" interpretation of "release" I have a very specific interpretation. The modification has already been done. As per his original post. He now wants to _distribute_ this code to "trusted testers" (his terms). I don't see how one could interpret this any differently than I do. I can hardly develop a commercial product, sell the code and then call the customers members of my "team".

[bob]

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

No!

The GPL doesn't even mention the word "release". It talks about "conveying" the program, while the FAQ uses the terms "convey" and "distribute". The GPL requires that you make the modified source code available to all those you distribute the program to. It does not require that the the source code is available to the public.

Tord

You are correct. but it also demands that the users who receive this modified source be able to distribute it as they choose according to the original GPL that governs the original work. This sending copies out with the request of a promise to not re-distribute directly violates the GPL.

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

The initial point is that if he chooses to send his modified version of a GPL program to someone else then he is not allowed in any way to restrict further redistribution by these persons to anyone else, be it in unchanged or modified form.
Asking for a promise not to redistribute further is a major breach of the whole GPL license.

Marc

I would tend to agree here. Asking for a promise does seem like an additional restriction, which the GPL does not allow.

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

Do you call the cops if your mom runs a stop sign? I wasn't trying to argue whether it's legal or not -- I don't CARE whether he's breaking the rules. I'm wondering why you care. You might be allowed to make his life difficult, but you're not obligated to.

I care very strongly because I also publish GPL'ed programs, and I do not want my copyright violated. By doing his actions, Volker is indirectly encouraging this.

I also don't think illegal distribution of chess software should be promoted in this forum.

[michiguel]

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

No!

The GPL doesn't even mention the word "release". It talks about "conveying" the program, while the FAQ uses the terms "convey" and "distribute". The GPL requires that you make the modified source code available to all those you distribute the program to. It does not require that the the source code is available to the public.

Tord

This is true, but very far from the initial point and I do not contest what you say here.
The initial point is not that anybody asked Volker to release his version to everybody.
He is perfectly allowed to choose those to whom he will send anything of his liking.
The initial point is that if he chooses to send his modified version of a GPL program to someone else then he is not allowed in any way to restrict further redistribution by these persons to anyone else, be it in unchanged or modified form.
Asking for a promise not to redistribute further is a major breach of the whole GPL license.

Marc

If I say "I will tell you this, if you can keep it confidential" I am not breaking any freedom of speech law. You are free to broadcast the secret any time you want. As Tord said, "you won't violate any contract, you will behave like an asshole". This is the same. People are confusing here a "gentlemen agreement" with a "binding contract". You cannot force anybody or put pressure to anybody not to distribute the program you passed undel GPL. That is not what the original poster intended.

Miguel