To the Copy and Paste Generation of Programmers

[smatovic]

To the Copy and Paste Generation of Programmers

Dear Community,

i get sick of Programmers which feel free to use Code under GPL but still
depend on distributing only binaries without opening their own sources.

This practice is not only violating given law, this practice works against the
hole OpenSource/Free Software Foundation philosophy.

The idea was that source is open! and every improvement of this open! source comes
back to the community!

Please, bevor you sneak into GPL Code and copy some stuff for own use read
the hole license:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

And take some time to think about the philosophy behind this idea of open source.

--
Srdja

PS: These GPL-Violations are not only chess related stuff.

PPS: Some professeurs should add "ehtics of programming" to their it-courses.

[Watchman]

To the Copy and Paste Generation of Programmers

Very well said! "+1"

Thank you for that post! Obviously there are some "authors" who need to take your words to heart.

Also many who need to take the time to understand the "open source" philosophy... that it does not mean some "free-for-all" (i.e. no rules or restrictions).

[Carotino]

The fact of hiding the code, could be explained by the need to protect their(?) copy ideas from ... In fact I think in the end this can be explained with one word: fear.
Fear that others may discover that, deep down, you're not then that "genius" that everyone thought ... Fear of losing face ... Fear of losing the fleeting notoriety gained ... There are many types of fear!
How do you overcome fear? Take away from you. Moving it to other people. We have already seen this technique, right?

It is not difficult to make any changes to a strong engine, and improve a bit 'its performance ... The point is that if you do this with an Open Source program, you must then publish the code. If you do not do this, we can no longer speak of "free flow of ideas, " but only of theft.

It would be foolish to deny the "inspiration" on the programs of the series Ippolit many programmers today! Of the many "derivative", as I can quote correct only programs that have published the source code:

1) Stockfish;

2) Fire;

and, modestly, 3) Deep Saros.

so many changes? Few? ... It does not matter! It will be the end user to decide if he wants to or not to use the program. What really matters is that the law was respected. If you have copied the code, not enough to say: "Thanks to this program XXXX my program is strong ...", you must publish the source code!

[Carotino]

Hem... I apologize to Marco Costalba: Stockfish is NOT a derivative of Ippolit, has only used it a few ideas. I have appointed Stockfish, for the simple reason that it has published the source code...

[Uri Blass]

The fact of hiding the code, could be explained by the need to protect their(?) copy ideas from ... In fact I think in the end this can be explained with one word: fear.
Fear that others may discover that, deep down, you're not then that "genius" that everyone thought ... Fear of losing face ... Fear of losing the fleeting notoriety gained ... There are many types of fear!
How do you overcome fear? Take away from you. Moving it to other people. We have already seen this technique, right?

It is not difficult to make any changes to a strong engine, and improve a bit 'its performance ... The point is that if you do this with an Open Source program, you must then publish the code. If you do not do this, we can no longer speak of "free flow of ideas, " but only of theft.

It would be foolish to deny the "inspiration" on the programs of the series Ippolit many programmers today! Of the many "derivative", as I can quote correct only programs that have published the source code:

1) Stockfish;

2) Fire;

and, modestly, 3) Deep Saros.

so many changes? Few? ... It does not matter! It will be the end user to decide if he wants to or not to use the program. What really matters is that the law was respected. If you have copied the code, not enough to say: "Thanks to this program XXXX my program is strong ...", you must publish the source code!

I disagree with the part that it is not difficult to make any changes to a strong engine, and improve a bit 'its performance ...

Maybe you are right if we talk about a small improvement of no more than 20 elo but the improvement that we talk about is a clearly bigger improvement.

[Carotino]

Ok Uri, I agree ... but we make this assumption:

I take a strong program, such as stockfish. The study thoroughly, and... Puff! I get a greath idea. A nice improvement in some functions, such as in the functions of assessment or, should I know?, Somewhere else... Wow, it's a good work! +200 ELO!
Very good! Now, change all references to Stockfish, recompile, and then only distribute the executable... We call it? ...How do I know? Let's try Blitz... Yes, Blitz is good!

Ladies and gentlemen ... Here Blitz, a new, strong, chess engine! It exceeds Stockfish, more than 200 ELO!! Blitz is free for non-commercial use ... Without the ideas of stockfish, Blitz could not have been so strong ...

Questions:

- the mere fact of having done a great improvement, I justified to violate the GPL?
- If the clone is strong then it is OK, the program becomes magically "original ", otherwise it remains just a clone ... This is the rule?
- This means that if I steal one million euro has been a genius, but if I steal an apple, I'm a thug?

The idea of Open Source is this:

1) I public the source code of my program
2) someone makes it better and. ..
3) in turn, he also publishes the new code improved, and someone makes it better...

The idea is to have a balance between "giving" and "taking". If I take and then not give, the chain jumps ... And I was just a profiteer.

[Uri Blass]

I do not claim that the improvement justifies violating the gpl.

My only objection is to the claim that it is not difficult to make the improvement if you violate the gpl.

The programmers of stockfish want to improve it and lately they made only a very little improvement(based on comparison between stockfish1.7 and stockfish2.0).

If someone make 200 elo improvement with stockfish then it is a very big achievement but the achievement does not change the fact that he has no right to release the exe file without releasing the source.

[Michel]

The programmers of stockfish want to improve it and lately they made only a very little improvement(based on comparison between stockfish1.7 and stockfish2.0).

Based on recent history it seems to be the case that if a (skilled) programmer
attacks a new codebase he/she can make substantial improvements. There are various obvious ways to explain this.

[Dann Corbit]

The programmers of stockfish want to improve it and lately they made only a very little improvement(based on comparison between stockfish1.7 and stockfish2.0).

Based on recent history it seems to be the case that if a (skilled) programmer
attacks a new codebase he/she can make substantial improvements. There are various obvious ways to explain this.

Besides the houdini author, who else has managed it? (perhaps Fire, but to a much lesser degree, and neither has managed 200 Elo).

The Ivanhoe stuff was never as strong as Rybka, and it hasn't really made any progress either.

[Michel]

Besides the houdini author, who else has managed it?

Examples are the authors of Rybka and Toga.

Another example is Marco and Joona improving Glaurung.

Very likely there are more examples which are not known.