Trusted testers wanted

[Christopher Conkie]

Glaurung 2.2 NNT is another glaurung clone (pardon, derived work).

Changes
- Simplification (Bugfix?) in LMR
- Bugfix in move ordering

Expect it to be 5 or 10 ELO stronger than Glaurung 2.2.

If you want to get a copy, please send an e-mail to glaurungclone [ät] nnuss DOT de.

I will send copies to trusted testers only.
If you don't get a copy, no reason will be given. This does not necessary mean, that I don't trust you.

Greetings
Volker

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

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

He gave away too many clues as to how this was not serious:

Few indicators:

* the claim that it's 5-10 elo more than Glaurung. Who knows if it turns out to be -5 elo?
* Asking for interested and trusted testers (oh yeah, for an alleged +5 elo derivative?)
* Changes: not too convincing, atleast for a non-programmer anyway.
* Email address - that begins with Glaurungclone@ is a satire for someone who is looking for serious trusted testers.
* 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.
* His participation in other thread where he criticized someone who is pro-derivative.

Kudos to you for making it appear genuine, Volker. Going through this thread, it seems as if everybody assumed that this was genuine offer.

Wrong.

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

Those who know. It's 22 elo better than Smaug.

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

People test Smaug which is 12 elo worse than Glaurung.

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

So the testers who test Smaug must be mad because that is....12 elo worse.

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

.

It is a Glaurung clone. Just like Smaug and Stockfish. It is not satire.....it's a fact.

* 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.

It implies that he will decide who he trusts, nothing else. Do you think that you would get a copy? Maybe it's better not to ask.....

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

I believe the other person claimed that it was difficult to improve Glaurung to the point of offering a challenge.

So Volker can......and the other guy....CAN'T.

Kudos to you for making it appear genuine, Volker. Going through this thread, it seems as if everybody assumed that this was genuine offer.

It is genuine so far as I know. Are you calling Volker a liar?





Christopher

[mcostalba]

I believe the other person claimed that it was difficult to improve Glaurung to the point of offering a challenge.

So Volker can......and the other guy....CAN'T.

This is very funny!

But I am not a politician and I don't want to mess with politicians so I will not fall in your trap and will not comment on this.

Have a nice day
Marco

[swami]

People test Smaug which is 12 elo worse than Glaurung. So the testers who test Smaug must be mad because that is....12 elo worse.

I've never even downloaded Smaug. I'm not sure if testers are still testing it out.

I believe the other person claimed that it was difficult to improve Glaurung to the point of offering a challenge.

So Volker can......and the other guy....CAN'T.

It is genuine so far as I know. Are you calling Volker a liar?

I was only guessing that he was joking. It doesn't mean that I was calling him a liar. There have been too much derivatives parodies every time a version of Toga, Smaug or Stockfish gets released, you know. So thought this might be one of them.

[bob]

I don't see why this is so hard to understand. If you take a freely distributed program and modify it, you have two options.

(1) keep it to yourself. You can not distribute it to another person or group, period. You can use it solely for your own purposes.

(2) Distribute it to the world, just as the original program you _copied_ was distributed.

It really is that simple, and that specific, and that clear.

There is a third possibility

(3) keep it to yourself and your codevelopers _while_ you are still developing / testing. Then, when you release publicy you have to release togheter with the source code (or the source code should be provided upon request)

However, do you (or anyone else) believe that if you solicit for testers here, that those people are actually a part of a development group? Doesn't begin to pass the "stink test" IMHO. If this were OK, then could you not distribute a modified GPL to a select group of people and use that same justification? They are just helping me develop the product, even though they did pay me for the privilege of doing so? You could certainly have a group, as we do working on Crafty. But I do not go out soliciting volunteers for testing and then say "you are a part of the development team now."

During development of last version of Stockfish I have kept git repository private (it still is), only Joona and Tord had a copy of it.

And when you send out a copy for evaluation or testing in the CCRL or whatever you _instantly_ are in violation of the GPL. If you keep it private, and do not distribute the binary to _anyone_ other than the people working on it, you are OK. If you go beyond that, you are definitely _not_ OK.

This is common also in other GPL developments where code is released according to GPL only when it is finished. Not all GPL projects works like this, as example Linux kernel and git itself they are fully open, it means they have their git repositories publicly available and everybody can follow the development patch by patch. Stockfish instead is fully disclosed togheter with the sources, well, actually just the sources only at the end of each release cycle.

Perhaps one day I will make git repository public, but in this chess engines world, at this moment in time, I think this would be, as we say in Italy "trying to take a step longer then your leg"

[bob]

I am not a lawyer, but my opinion is that Volker is clearly allowed to do what he describes. He states clearly that the program he sends to testers will be GPL licensed. At the same time, he wants the testers to give him a personal promise that they will not distribute the program. From a legal point of view, the testers are completely free to distribute the program, and do anything else allowed by the GPL. Distributing the program would not be breaking the law, but just breaking a promise. It would not make them criminals, but merely assholes.

That's why Volker emphasizes that he is only interested in testers he knows he can trust. He knows they will not be legally bound by their promise, so he needs someone trustable.

100% correct

And 100% wrong.

Let's turn this backward logic around. I take a GPL program, copy it, modify it, and then sell it. But I sell it only to friends, and I don't really charge them any money for the program, they simply have to make a "donation" to me to get a copy. Do you think the FSF would buy that? Not for a second. You can't go out and "solicit" testers, and then somehow claim that those people you "solicited" are now part of a private development group...

Nobody buys that...

As long as the source code and GPL are attached it is perfectly acceptable for you to sell the program. It would be silly for someone to buy it and you would not be able to prevent them from redistributing it.

That is _exactly_ my point. The source _must_ be distributed. That is exactly what is _not_ happening here. Once it is released in any form, the source has to be made available. 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.

[bob]

Are y'all arguing because you want the code or just for the sake of arguing? I don't see why everything needs to turn into a legal battle. It's an admitted clone, within 10 points of the original, and the original author knows and is okay with what he's doing presently. He's not being secretive, he just wants help testing things. So why all the huffing and puffing? Take a heart pill!

I have not looked at stockfish and don't intend to. I simply want to see the GPL followed for programs released under the GPL.

[bob]

It's a legal battle because what he is doing might be illegal. Very simple... Clone, no clone, strength is completely irrelevant.

It is obviously completely legal. The GPL FAQ even says explicitly that it is:

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

This is exactly what Volker wants to do. Right now, he is an individual with his own private modified version of a GPL program. He's looking for a team, and he's saying that he is only interested in team members who agree not to release the program. What's the problem?

Tord

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.

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. In fact, the distributor has a legal obligation to continue to release the source for 3 years _after_ the project ends... And there are further requirements that are explicit and not open to interpretation.

[John Conway]

Yes it does look like a joke now that you mention it.
At first I thought it was just a scam to harvest email addresses.

[Christopher Conkie]

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

[MattieShoes]

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.

Must be a yearning deep in human heart to stop other people from doing as they please. Rules, laws - always for other fellow. A murky part of us, something we had before we came down out of trees, and failed to shuck when we stood up. Because not one of those people said: Please pass this so that I won't be able to do something I know I should stop. Nyet, tovarishchee, was always something they hated to see neighbors doing. Stop them for their own good.

You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.

He is conveying covered works to others who provide facilities for running those works. He's providing the source for all the material which he does not control copyright.

Silly.