mcostalba wrote:If people is seriously interested in developing (as can be Vratko, just to make a name) there are plenty of ways to contribute with patches _and_ serious tests.
I cannot find the name Vratko Polák in the 1.8 sources. Either he has not contributed much or it was one-side trade. Others contribute patches, bug fixes, ideas and you put your name under it. Maybe this your understanding of "open source"?
To open up the git repo for public read access would be appropriate. People who contribute to the SF development should know what's going on.
Ralph, please let me be very clear and honest with you.
If what moves you to contribute to SF is to see your name on the sources then please give up doing it, you'll avoid diappointment and frustration and you'll have better times and for sure more tangible return doing something else.
My point of vierw is that no other new name will appear on the sources apart from what are already in.
Main reason (but there are others) is that we (should say 'I' but I guess Joona and Tord agree) don't want to foster interest in SF where the motivation is different from pure fun and joy of doing it, of finding an idea, make it work and verify your idea improved an already mature and state of the art engine.
To open up the git repo for public read access would be appropriate. People who contribute to the SF development should know whats going on.
Hi,
IMO there is little point to argue with someone who is trying to mislead the open source movement. I am sorry to say this, but currently it seems more like a cult. It is in such moments that one understands the importance of the contribution of people like Fabien Letouzey. In case of Galurung/StockFish it seems to me that, things are not as clear as they have been a few years ago. In any event, I assume it is better for contributes to work on a public domain project or a project with a similar license, so that one could contribute to chess programming not this or that particular cult.
To open up the git repo for public read access would be appropriate. People who contribute to the SF development should know whats going on.
Hi,
IMO there is little point to argue with someone who is trying to mislead the open source movement. I am sorry to say this, but currently it seems more like a cult. It is in such moments that one understands the importance of the contribution of people like Fabien Letouzey. In case of Galurung/StockFish it seems to me that, things are not as clear as they have been a few years ago. In any event, I assume it is better for contributes to work on a public domain project or a project with a similar license, so that one could contribute to chess programming not this or that particular cult.
Here is another one!
Adam, I don't understand why don't you fork SF, well you have already done this BTW, open up a repository and do exactly what you are advertising.
What do you want from us ? The code ? You have it !
The possibility to develop out in the open ? You have it, just push a repo with 1.8 (or crab) sources to github !
I really don't understand what is the blocking point for you, Ralph, or anyone else to do what you would like, to put your time where your mouth is.
You absolutely don't need a public domain engine, if you state this you are not aware of what GPL allows you to do. Actually a public domain engine project is much more prone to trolls because at anytime anyone could take the sources add something and close them and I don't think is the intended behaviour of such a project.
To open up the git repo for public read access would be appropriate. People who contribute to the SF development should know whats going on.
Hi,
IMO there is little point to argue with someone who is trying to mislead the open source movement. I am sorry to say this, but currently it seems more like a cult. It is in such moments that one understands the importance of the contribution of people like Fabien Letouzey. In case of Galurung/StockFish it seems to me that, things are not as clear as they have been a few years ago. In any event, I assume it is better for contributes to work on a public domain project or a project with a similar license, so that one could contribute to chess programming not this or that particular cult.
There are often several ways to look at things. One possible view of things is that Stockfish is open source and free and thus a valuable gift to the computer chess community. It's difficult for me to see it any other way.
We have been given what might be considered a valuable gift and it's really difficult for me to share your point of view that their refusal to open up the repository in just the way you think they should deserves harsh criticism.
I think you need to reconsider your point of view on this one - what you said is unfair in the extreme.
Uri Blass wrote:
Sorry but I do not understand what do you earn from keeping your improvements as secret.
It may be better if you release every new version(even if the improvement is only 1 elo)
Maybe in this case more people can help in testing and you make a bigger improvement(when part of the help may be finding cases when the changes that you believe to be good are bad at slower time control or with more games or against other opponents).
Uri
Hello Uri,
I vowed not to respond to one of your posts but I read the statement in bold and I had to say "Huh?!?"
Uri, please do not attempt to argue something which you do not believe in and have never practiced with your own chess engine.
Adam, I don't understand why don't you fork SF, well you have already done this BTW, open up a repository and do exactly what you are advertising.
What do you want from us ? The code ? You have it !
The possibility to develop out in the open ? You have it, just push a repo with 1.8 (or crab) sources to github !
I really don't understand what is the blocking point for you, Ralph, or anyone else to do what you would like, to put your time where your mouth is.
You absolutely don't need a public domain engine, if you state this you are not aware of what GPL allows you to do. Actually a public domain engine project is much more prone to trolls because at anytime anyone could take the sources add something and close them and I don't think is the intended behaviour of such a project.
Hello Marco,
Welcome to the real world of incredible persons and incredible positions they adopt.
Do not pay them much mind.
Enjoy doing what you do.
Stockfish is a free gift. F-R-E-E. As in anyone can go look at it and make modifications/changes/tweaks/patches.
Please do not take adverse comments which smack of unfairness too much into consideration.
Release to your schedule instead of some outrageous timetable suggested by some and have fun!
I think you need to reconsider your point of view on this one - what you said is unfair in the extreme.
The repository case is just one example. His behavior towards contributors (I am not one), calling some of them trolls, refusing to include their names in the code from now on for various reasons, etc. These are obvious cases that one can do what he wants to others but IMO this is definitely quite different from open source philosophy. Unfortunately there is no strong and uncontroversial public domain code in CP for now. Hopefully over the time people would create something which would belong to all and would help everyone in the correct way as it is supposed to be.
To open up the git repo for public read access would be appropriate. People who contribute to the SF development should know whats going on.
Hi,
IMO there is little point to argue with someone who is trying to mislead the open source movement. I am sorry to say this, but currently it seems more like a cult. It is in such moments that one understands the importance of the contribution of people like Fabien Letouzey. In case of Galurung/StockFish it seems to me that, things are not as clear as they have been a few years ago. In any event, I assume it is better for contributes to work on a public domain project or a project with a similar license, so that one could contribute to chess programming not this or that particular cult.
Here is another one!
Adam, I don't understand why don't you fork SF, well you have already done this BTW, open up a repository and do exactly what you are advertising.
What do you want from us ? The code ? You have it !
The possibility to develop out in the open ? You have it, just push a repo with 1.8 (or crab) sources to github !
I really don't understand what is the blocking point for you, Ralph, or anyone else to do what you would like, to put your time where your mouth is.
You absolutely don't need a public domain engine, if you state this you are not aware of what GPL allows you to do. Actually a public domain engine project is much more prone to trolls because at anytime anyone could take the sources add something and close them and I don't think is the intended behaviour of such a project.
Hi Marco,
God... I'm sorry you have to deal with such nonsense. What these people seem not to realize is besides the fact of being completely useless to CC context, instead they are only disturbing those who are really doing something good.
You guys are the best. Keep doing the stunning work.
I think you need to reconsider your point of view on this one - what you said is unfair in the extreme.
The repository case is just one example. His behavior towards contributors (I am not one), calling some of them trolls, refusing to include their names in the code from now on for various reasons, etc. These are obvious cases that one can do what he wants to others but IMO this is definitely quite different from open source philosophy. Unfortunately there is no strong and uncontroversial public domain code in CP for now. Hopefully over the time people would create something which would belong to all and would help everyone in the correct way as it is supposed to be.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what open source is. It depends somewhat on the license, but it doesn't mean the program belongs to everyone. The program still "belongs" to the Stockfish team - they are the OWNER of the licences.
For example they would have the right to represent it in a tournament - but you would not have that right. They could go commercial with it, but you could not. They could change the license, you cannot.
Uri Blass wrote:
Sorry but I do not understand what do you earn from keeping your improvements as secret.
It may be better if you release every new version(even if the improvement is only 1 elo)
Maybe in this case more people can help in testing and you make a bigger improvement(when part of the help may be finding cases when the changes that you believe to be good are bad at slower time control or with more games or against other opponents).
Uri
Hello Uri,
I vowed not to respond to one of your posts but I read the statement in bold and I had to say "Huh?!?"
Uri, please do not attempt to argue something which you do not believe in and have never practiced with your own chess engine.
Later.
I do not see what is the relevance of my own engine.
I stopped working on Movei and Movei is not a free source program.
I never claimed that it is logical for every chess program to release every change and my claim was specifically about stockfish(considering the target of the stockfish team based on what I believe).
If I understand correctly based on the words of Tord,
The target of the stockfish team is not to be number 1 but to make improvement in computer chess and this is the reason that they release the source code(it was never my own target in releasing Movei).
I simply thought that releasing every change may make bigger improvement in computer chess(and may help both stockfish and other programs to become better)
Maybe my opinion is wrong and releasing every change is going to make more noise and is not going to help
but I do not see the relevance of your post.
