LS-ratinglist: DON 1.0b

[pohl4711]

The result of DON 1.0b is now online.

http://ls-ratinglist.beepworld.de


Stefan

(Perhaps you have to clear your browsercache or reload the website)

[arjuntemurnikar]

Amazing. I am surprised how strong this engine is -- almost 40 elo higher than SF 4. Thats incredible.

[lucasart]

Amazing. I am surprised how strong this engine is -- almost 40 elo higher than SF 4. Thats incredible.

I suggest you have a closer look at it before being "surprised"
[LINK deleted by mod Team]
DON is an illegal SF/Glaurung clone. The author thought he could just take the source code, removed all copyright notice, and the license (GNU GPLv3).

But that's ok. Nobody cares about the GPL these days...

[Adam Hair]

Amazing. I am surprised how strong this engine is -- almost 40 elo higher than SF 4. Thats incredible.

I suggest you have a closer look at it before being "surprised"
[LINK deleted by mod Team]
DON is an illegal SF/Glaurung clone. The author thought he could just take the source code, removed all copyright notice, and the license (GNU GPLv3).

But that's ok. Nobody cares about the GPL these days...

That would seem to include Marco:
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 97&t=51151

A copy of the GPL is not included with the source, and the only reference that remains to the Stockfish license is in the Makefile. But Marco signed off on this derivative
I am going to send a pm to Marco and try to resolve this issue.

[lkaufman]

Amazing. I am surprised how strong this engine is -- almost 40 elo higher than SF 4. Thats incredible.

Does anyone know which version of SF it was derived from (or most closely resembles)? If it was derived from SF 4 or earlier, that would be a real achievement. If it was derived from SF DD or later, that would be an embarrassing regression.

[mcostalba]

Amazing. I am surprised how strong this engine is -- almost 40 elo higher than SF 4. Thats incredible.

Does anyone know which version of SF it was derived from (or most closely resembles)? If it was derived from SF 4 or earlier, that would be a real achievement. If it was derived from SF DD or later, that would be an embarrassing regression.

I am browsing DON sources these days trying to find some interesting hint....I have not examined carefully but it seems he has included very recent changes, so definitely post SF 4, more probably around SF DD, but again, I have not looked at this point specifically.

I have still not examined search and evaluation carefully so I still don't know if he has introduced some important change ELO-wise to the original SF sources.

[lucasart]

Amazing. I am surprised how strong this engine is -- almost 40 elo higher than SF 4. Thats incredible.

I suggest you have a closer look at it before being "surprised"
[LINK deleted by mod Team]
DON is an illegal SF/Glaurung clone. The author thought he could just take the source code, removed all copyright notice, and the license (GNU GPLv3).

But that's ok. Nobody cares about the GPL these days...

That would seem to include Marco:
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 97&t=51151

I'm a bit surprised that Marco is OK with that. But Marco is not the sole copyright holder...

Publishing a "Public Domain" Stockfish (like Ippolit) is even worse than making a closed source derivative. The problem with stripping SF from its GPL protection, is that you allow people to now use DON as a base.

They will make their own closed source derivative. And they will wash their hands by saying that DON is public domain so they are allowed to do anything they want with it!

At least when someone does a closed source SF clone (eg. Amitis), it's only a binary file and no one can use it as a base for further usurpation.

That's why it annoys me when people don't understand the difference between open source, public domain, and GPL protected free software (free as in freedom, not necessarly price).

That being said, perhaps the author of DON is not aware of these legal "details" and he is not dishonest. I think it's best to start by asking him politely to come clean and restore proper copyright notice and GNU GPL v3.

[michiguel]

Amazing. I am surprised how strong this engine is -- almost 40 elo higher than SF 4. Thats incredible.

I suggest you have a closer look at it before being "surprised"
[LINK deleted by mod Team]
DON is an illegal SF/Glaurung clone. The author thought he could just take the source code, removed all copyright notice, and the license (GNU GPLv3).

But that's ok. Nobody cares about the GPL these days...

That would seem to include Marco:
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 97&t=51151

A copy of the GPL is not included with the source, and the only reference that remains to the Stockfish license is in the Makefile. But Marco signed off on this derivative
I am going to send a pm to Marco and try to resolve this issue.

The "author" had a reference to Glaurung 3.1 days ago (but hiding the SF origin), but now it was totally removed. As you say, he forgot to remove this from the Makefile. Incredibly sloppy.

# Stockfish, a UCI chess playing engine derived from Glaurung 2.1
# Copyright (C) 2004-2008 Tord Romstad (Glaurung author)
# Copyright (C) 2008-2014 Marco Costalba, Joona Kiiski, Tord Romstad
#
# Stockfish is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
# it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
# the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
# (at your option) any later version.
#
# Stockfish is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
# but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
# MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
# GNU General Public License for more details.
#
# You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
# along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

Miguel

[Adam Hair]

Amazing. I am surprised how strong this engine is -- almost 40 elo higher than SF 4. Thats incredible.

I suggest you have a closer look at it before being "surprised"
[LINK deleted by mod Team]
DON is an illegal SF/Glaurung clone. The author thought he could just take the source code, removed all copyright notice, and the license (GNU GPLv3).

But that's ok. Nobody cares about the GPL these days...

That would seem to include Marco:
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 97&t=51151

I'm a bit surprised that Marco is OK with that. But Marco is not the sole copyright holder...

Publishing a "Public Domain" Stockfish (like Ippolit) is even worse than making a closed source derivative. The problem with stripping SF from its GPL protection, is that you allow people to now use DON as a base.

They will make their own closed source derivative. And they will wash their hands by saying that DON is public domain so they are allowed to do anything they want with it!

At least when someone does a closed source SF clone (eg. Amitis), it's only a binary file and no one can use it as a base for further usurpation.

That's why it annoys me when people don't understand the difference between open source, public domain, and GPL protected free software (free as in freedom, not necessarly price).

That being said, perhaps the author of DON is not aware of these legal "details" and he is not dishonest. I think it's best to start by asking him politely to come clean and restore proper copyright notice and GNU GPL v3.

I agree with you, Lucas. And I do think that the best thing to do at this point is to ask him to replace the license and notice. But this is properly a step that the Stockfish team should take.

[michiguel]

Amazing. I am surprised how strong this engine is -- almost 40 elo higher than SF 4. Thats incredible.

I suggest you have a closer look at it before being "surprised"
[LINK deleted by mod Team]
DON is an illegal SF/Glaurung clone. The author thought he could just take the source code, removed all copyright notice, and the license (GNU GPLv3).

But that's ok. Nobody cares about the GPL these days...

That would seem to include Marco:
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 97&t=51151

I'm a bit surprised that Marco is OK with that. But Marco is not the sole copyright holder...

Publishing a "Public Domain" Stockfish (like Ippolit) is even worse than making a closed source derivative. The problem with stripping SF from its GPL protection, is that you allow people to now use DON as a base.

They will make their own closed source derivative. And they will wash their hands by saying that DON is public domain so they are allowed to do anything they want with it!

At least when someone does a closed source SF clone (eg. Amitis), it's only a binary file and no one can use it as a base for further usurpation.

That's why it annoys me when people don't understand the difference between open source, public domain, and GPL protected free software (free as in freedom, not necessarly price).

That being said, perhaps the author of DON is not aware of these legal "details" and he is not dishonest. I think it's best to start by asking him politely to come clean and restore proper copyright notice and GNU GPL v3.

I agree with you, Lucas. And I do think that the best thing to do at this point is to ask him to replace the license and notice. But this is properly a step that the Stockfish team should take.

As long as the "author" does not clean up his act, links to software that violated licenses should not be allowed. A derivative of Glaurung (as the author first claimed) that do not contained GPL license is not ok. To make things worse, now there is an attempt to erase its origins, and it is more than "questionable" under the charter of this forum.

Mod Team.