Cluster Toga/Paderborn championship

[pijl]

It seems to me that playing the program in an international contest is outside of the scope of having someone work on it for you. But I have always had trouble reading the GPL.

If some part of the GPL is diffcult to understand, you can always have a look at the FAQ, which is a lot easier to read for non-lawyers.

In this particular case, the relevant question is this one.

Tord

ok. Then a quote from the answer you referred to in this FAQ:

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

It seems to me it is released to the public 'in some way' by participating in a public tournament, where it is run in public, showing the exact results (i.e. the moves it produces).
Anyway I'm tired of this discussion. I do see the need for scientists to use open source products for their research. Exactly for the reason presented time and time again: You do not have to reinvent everything again to do the research on the subject you're interested in.
However, I do not see why they have to participate in competitions if they did not produce the software by themselves. You can hardly call Toga and Cluster Toga the fruit of cooperation. Parasitism looks more like it. Whether with or without the consent of the host.
As for the contribution that Cluster Toga makes to increase the knowledge of the community: Where are the papers, source code or any other type of publication. Not so long ago I searched for it. Nada. Despite the fact that it already participated in Paderborn twice.
Richard.

[hgm]

It seems to me it is released to the public 'in some way' by participating in a public tournament, where it is run in public, showing the exact results (i.e. the moves it produces).

Sorry Richard, but this is pure nonsense, legally or otherwise. Releasing a program is not the same as releasing its output. Output of GPL'ed programs is never protected by the GPL.

[pijl]

It seems to me it is released to the public 'in some way' by participating in a public tournament, where it is run in public, showing the exact results (i.e. the moves it produces).

Sorry Richard, but this is pure nonsense, legally or otherwise. Releasing a program is not the same as releasing its output. Output of GPL'ed programs is never protected by the GPL.

It is released by putting it on display. This is not private use. The program is responding to moves selected by its opponent and its immediate results (the move played) are also communicated to the third person: The opponent. So basically the opponent is using the program, not the person that is operating it. To me that is the same as if the program is released to the opponent.
Anyway, my main objection to Cluster Toga in tournaments like this is not a potential breach of GPL. That is something for FSF to worry about. My main objection is still that tournaments are sporting events where using other peoples source code and rustling permissions later it something I do not like.
Richard.

[hgm]

Well, no sane lawyer or judge in the World would agree with that reasoning.

If we don't like it is of little relevance. I also don't like participation of opponents with computers 10x faster than mine, or SMP opponents, or pondering opponents. But that is just my bad luck...

[Dann Corbit]

It seems to me that playing the program in an international contest is outside of the scope of having someone work on it for you. But I have always had trouble reading the GPL.

If some part of the GPL is diffcult to understand, you can always have a look at the FAQ, which is a lot easier to read for non-lawyers.

In this particular case, the relevant question is this one.

Tord

I do not trust any language that I cannot understand. I will not trust someone's simple explanation of it, even if they are a lawyer, and especially if they might possibly have something to gain by it. That is another reason that I broadly prefer Berkeley style licences to GPL. I can read and understand it very easily.

[Dann Corbit]

{snip}
That's the case for all licenses, isn't it? There are always some weird corner cases which even lawyers (or perhaps especially lawyers) can't agree about. I consider the GPL to be philosophically very simple: Essentially, you are given complete freedom to do whatever you want with the software, as long as you make sure that all users of modified versions of the software get the same freedom.

Tord

The GPL is not my favorite license, and yet I have worked on perhaps 50 GPL projects, mostly just for my own amusement.

At any rate, I feel very, very strongly that the author of a program should be able to choose any licence that they like including totally proprietary, GPL, Berkeley, Public Domain, etc. and it is nobody else's business.

IMO-YMMV.

[Rolf]

I hardly pay any attention to engines in this Elo range, but Toga is available under GPL, isn't it? If not, it would still be OK if Fabien gave special permission to Thomas to use the Fruit code in this way, as long as Fruit did not contain any GPL'ed code of which the copyrights rested by others.

A license agreement never limits what the owner of the copyrights is allowed to do with his creations, and he remains always free to license whomever he chooses on completely different conditions.

Claim a copyrighted work as your own is simply fraud. It would not remove the license. Anyone using it as a basis for a new development would still be using code as it appeared in Glaurung, although it might have acquired it in a file called Odin.c. It would remain a copy of Glaurung, and to use it tou would have to have permission if the copyright owner.

HGM, let me ask you a clear question: didnt you read what Conkie wrote about mud-wrestling? And would you enjoy if our community would deteriorate into such a direction? I mean, I am surprised by your messages just like by those from Corbit. You define what is allowed and what not, but there is always this irrational moment when you think that by allowance you or anyone could then well be allowed to behave unethically... IMO this is a consequence of a wrong mind development through too much programming practice. It is untrue that in real life you can to it forward or backward and then again the same procedure with some pirouettes, if the background isnt founded on your own creations! IMo we should allow a guy like Lorenz from Paderborn some extra rights because he's so dedicated to the tournaments there, but what on Earth have the three Toga Cluster guys earned that they can "win" a tournament with alien data clusters? Dont we have ethics in our field? Ethics for questions beyond legal or illegal? I always thought that certain things are simply impossible for decent people. Was I wrong?