daniel71 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:59 am
My opinion is that if Chessbase wants to use the Stockfish engine and charge a premium for a free engine they should donate money to the Stockfish Developers or pay a license fee so the Stockfish engine will continue and give the dedicated Stockfish team a little incentive for giving us a wonderful program. Chessbase should improve their teaching algorithms in the software, not borrow others hard work to make a easy buck...
daniel71 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:08 am
Also maybe revise the GPL to state "Free for personal use and education, if the code is to be sold for a commercial for profit entity then a percentage of revenue shall be donated to the original programmers or a license should be contracted for the future development of said software".
Nicely written !!
But do you think that will happen and if so, when ?
In the mean time, "wisemen" expect Stockfish developers to stay quiet ??
Well, the word's spreading far and wide now
Modern Times wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 4:43 am
I wonder... will this thread reach 40+ pages like the other one ?
Well, some dogs never like letting go of their bone.
Not calling anybody a dog. It's just a saying.
Of course you are.
If you don't like what GCP has to say, you can leave this thread (both of you).
like a dog with a bone (not comparable) (simile) Stubborn and tenacious; persistent; relentless; dogged.
hopefully the dogs aren't after your backbone. they might be disappointed.
if you chose defend a con artist, so be it. your call. I've nothing else to say to you.
daniel71 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:08 am
Also maybe revise the GPL to state "Free for personal use and education, if the code is to be sold for a commercial for profit entity then a percentage of revenue shall be donated to the original programmers or a license should be contracted for the future development of said software".
No.
Ideas=science. Simplification=engineering.
Without ideas there is nothing to simplify.
daniel71 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:08 am
Also maybe revise the GPL to state "Free for personal use and education, if the code is to be sold for a commercial for profit entity then a percentage of revenue shall be donated to the original programmers or a license should be contracted for the future development of said software".
That would be completely pointless right? (Even if it could be done for Stockfish, which it cannot, as it is already GPLv3.)
Nothing would prevent ChessBase from selling the FF2 NNUE separately, and making sure there is an 'independent' free version of Stockfish on GitHub that people who bought the FF2 net can conveniently download to run that net.
Another option would be for Chessbase to donate a proportion of the profits from Fat Fritz 2 to charity ? Trouble is even that probably wouldn't satisfy the critics. I don't think anything will short of its removal from sale would satisfy some individuals.
I think Author of Fat Fritz and Chessbase should send SF developers a dick instead.... they are getting used to it... first Houdini and than Fire and now Fat Fritz.... Nothing will come out of it like usual...
Maybe use a different license before Stockfish 13 comes out. How about using this license for future versions: https://omnetpp.org/intro/license
I understand Stockfish Software Authors wish to raise the understanding of Computer Chess programming and not for a profit but their time, effort and knowledge has value. Should their work be borrowed and not compensated? I think this violated the spirit of the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.
