Page 3 of 3

Re: Stockfish Polyglot now violates the GPL

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2020 1:12 am
by kramnik
Ovyron wrote:
Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:19 am
... the code that produces the compiles doesn't include that file, so having it ready beforehand would cause a delay of the compiles, which is what most users care about.
False: if commented it wouldn't affect the binaries in any way.

Re: Stockfish Polyglot now violates the GPL

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2020 2:33 pm
by Ovyron
I meant that even if the compiles were identical, if you wanted to release them with the code, you'd need to delay their release until the credits were ready, so now I understand why releasing them ASAP and releasing the code later when the credits are ready is better.

Re: Stockfish Polyglot now violates the GPL

Posted: Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:51 pm
by syzygy
Ovyron wrote:
Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:54 am
Adam Hair wrote:
Sun Mar 29, 2020 11:37 pm
As for the general indifference to kramnik violating Stockfish's licensing, we both know it is due to the fact that kramnik is not hiding the origins or nature of his work.
This thread here is to point out the indifference *from the community.*

Stockfish Polyglot's hidden source has become the tree that falls that doesn't make any audible noise.
The community has no standing to complain. Only the copyright holders have.

Re: Stockfish Polyglot now violates the GPL

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2020 6:59 am
by Ovyron
syzygy wrote:
Thu Apr 16, 2020 7:51 pm
The community has no standing to complain. Only the copyright holders have.
I complained and the sources were publicly released, so at least this is an example where ceasing to be silent worked.