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.
Uri
the relevance is "put your money where your mouth is"
but that might be hard if all one can show is a "quilt"
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.
I already know these. But IMO one of the main reasons this case might not be a good representative of open source movement is just like you said, practically they can do what ever they want according to this license, but a competent public domain (or similar) project would not give the original author/team such authority. Naturally there are many projects similar to SF, but at least they show a consistent behavior towards contributors and testers. So if they want release code under GPL that is their decision, and if you want to get ideas, thats your right, but if someone wants to help the project, he should know that amongst other things they no longer want to give him credit in the code.
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. Wink
There is of course no need to clutter the code with lists of names but most open source projects list the names of external contributors at least in the changelog.
Uri Blass wrote:
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.
Let me assist you with that. Both of your statements above are true....and totally irrelevant.
Uri Blass wrote:
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).
Aha! So you acknowledge that your position is at best illogical and based on your beliefs. Again that has nothing to do with what is relevant.
Uri Blass wrote:
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).
Thanks for sharing your motivations....
Uri Blass wrote:
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)
And I disagree with you...
Uri Blass wrote:
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.
Uri
And yet, here you so wonderfully sum up my position!
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. Wink
There is of course no need to clutter the code with lists of names but most open source projects list the names of external contributors at least in the changelog.
I really don't see a problem here. It's up to the authors to make their own determination about which minor contributers, if any, to include or not include.
You guys need to read between the lines to realize what you are actually saying by implication. You are basically saying that the Stockfish team consists of self important glory hounds who are eager to take other peoples ideas and take credit for those ideas.
Is this point of view in any way consistent with what they have actually done by providing an incredibly strong chess program free of charge to the chess community with source code? Of course not.
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.
I already know these. But IMO one of the main reasons this case might not be a good representative of open source movement is just like you said, practically they can do what ever they want according to this license, but a competent public domain (or similar) project would not give the original author/team such authority. Naturally there are many projects similar to SF, but at least they show a consistent behavior towards contributors and testers. So if they want release code under GPL that is their decision, and if you want to get ideas, thats your right, but if someone wants to help the project, he should know that amongst other things they no longer want to give him credit in the code.
What license would you recommend? GPL applies to the version released under it. The original authors can do a new version, and _not_ release it under GPL if they so choose..l.
Uri Blass wrote:
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.
Let me assist you with that. Both of your statements above are true....and totally irrelevant.
Uri Blass wrote:
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).
Aha! So you acknowledge that your position is at best illogical and based on your beliefs. Again that has nothing to do with what is relevant.
Uri Blass wrote:
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).
Thanks for sharing your motivations....
Uri Blass wrote:
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)
And I disagree with you...
Uri Blass wrote:
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.
Uri
And yet, here you so wonderfully sum up my position!
Thanks Uri.
Later.
No
We did not need your post to make the point that more releases are going to make more noise and Marco Costalba already explained this opinion.
Here are your words:
"Uri, please do not attempt to argue something which you do not believe in and have never practiced with your own chess engine."
I understand that in other words you blame me that I am not honest about my opinion and I suggest things that I do not support(and the proof is that I did not do similiar things with movei)
Later when I try to defend myself and explain that movei is irrelevant you claim that my statements are correct and totally irrelevant.
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.
Uri
the relevance is "put your money where your mouth is"
but that might be hard if all one can show is a "quilt"
There is no money so I do not understand what do you mean by putting my money where my mouth is.
If you mean that I need to do what I suggest to other people then I do not understand the logic of it(espacially when I stopped working on movei)
I also do not understand what do you mean by
"all one can show is a "quilt""
I think that I did not show a "quilt" in the discussion with Marco Costalba
but my first language is not english and maybe there is some misunderstanding(that means that you understood things that I did not mean or that I understand now things that you do not mean).
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. Wink
There is of course no need to clutter the code with lists of names but most open source projects list the names of external contributors at least in the changelog.
We don't keep a changelog, the names of contributors went into the announcement. But, again, I'll probably ask Joona and Tord to seriously consider the implications of this, apparentely innocuous, practice.
If this practice can foster the desire of people to see their names listed somewhere and hence their willing to contribute to SF then we should seriously reconsider this choice because could "attract" wrongly motivated (for my opinion, of course) people.
I have already said but I would like to repeate: if you provide patches /time /tests just to see your name somewhere, please don't do it with SF, you are wasting your precious time. I would like to avoid such people to be involved with SF and so I try not to foster them with false hopes.
