OpenChess

ppetrov wrote:

kingliveson wrote:You can't change Public Domain to GPL.

Not true, you can do whatever you want with Public Domain, including modify and release it under different license (GPL, closed source, etc).

I do not think so. The original author still holds the copyright and can place any restrictions on the source he wants when he releases it into the public domain...

hyatt wrote:I do not think so. The original author still holds the copyright and can place any restrictions on the source he wants when he releases it into the public domain...

No, "public domain" means that all IP rights of the author have been forfeited. At least if Wikipedia's article on the topic is to be trusted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

ppetrov wrote:

hyatt wrote:I do not think so. The original author still holds the copyright and can place any restrictions on the source he wants when he releases it into the public domain...

No, "public domain" means that all IP rights of the author have been forfeited. At least if Wikipedia's article on the topic is to be trusted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

In addition, if a derivative work is sufficiently modified and original to be considered "new", the "new author" and its "new work" then are granted copyright. Knowing Norman's excellent and innovative work, I think it is just fair he is allowed to stamp any license he wants to his engines.

nepossiver wrote:

ppetrov wrote:

hyatt wrote:I do not think so. The original author still holds the copyright and can place any restrictions on the source he wants when he releases it into the public domain...

No, "public domain" means that all IP rights of the author have been forfeited. At least if Wikipedia's article on the topic is to be trusted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

In addition, if a derivative work is sufficiently modified and original to be considered "new", the "new author" and its "new work" then are granted copyright. Knowing Norman's excellent and innovative work, I think it is just fair he is allowed to stamp any license he wants to his engines.

What if you diff the original ip* and his program and there is 95%+ exact matches??? Still feel the same way?

nepossiver wrote:In addition, if a derivative work is sufficiently modified and original to be considered "new", the "new author" and its "new work" then are granted copyright. Knowing Norman's excellent and innovative work, I think it is just fair he is allowed to stamp any license he wants to his engines.

The "new author" has copyright only over his modifications. The entire resulting work's copyright is shared between the "old" and "new" author (some free-software organizations require copyright assignment for patches, in order to avoid complications resulting from that). In the "public domain" case there is no old author, so the new one can do whatever he pleases. That's not the case if the original was GPL, or any other license for that matter.

ThinkingALot wrote:

pedrox wrote:Well, I studied the code and the code is robbolito 0.0085g3, only 3 values changed minimally in the evaluation of pawns.
I apologize to HG for playing with the clone on your server, but it helps to unmask SquarknII.

Robbolito is a public domain project. So it's better to call such "clones" not clones but derivatives. You just can't clone something which is public domain and hence can be used anywhere.

I take the source code of Gull, I change three random values, I change the name as SquarknII and I keep it private but promoted it in multiple Web pages as a new and original engine and I play in the world championship.

Your call it a derivative?

I can call derivative Toga, Fire, Ivanhoe or Houdini and others but not to an engine as SquarknII where the author takes a code and change 3 values random without knowing what it make.

At the end I'll have to apologize to the author for exposing the engine as a clone, when the reality is that I'm deceived by the author during a year, I have been cheated because he told me that behind him has a group of programmers, a group of GMs, cheated because I have answered hundreds of messages about programming thinking that eventually they would make their original engine. Deceived because they have tried to use my name to play tournaments like HGM, ACCA and even the world championship.

Pedro

Warning, WTF-type language: http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long as the name is changed.

Q. Isn’t this license basically public domain?
A. There is no such thing as “putting a work in the public domain”, you America-centered, Commonwealth-biased individual.

On this second point I've never been able to figure out how one can make something copyright "PUBLICDOMAIN (workers)" or in what jurisdiction this would apply.

I guess I can add that mere licenses are not a sufficient metric in which to measure questions about chess origins, for things such as ICGA purposes.

pedrox wrote:I take the source code of Gull, I change three random values, I change the name as SquarknII and I keep it private but promoted it in multiple Web pages as a new and original engine and I play in the world championship. Your call it a derivative?

You can even make it commercial .

pedrox wrote:I can call derivative Toga, Fire, Ivanhoe or Houdini and others but not to an engine as SquarknII where the author takes a code and change 3 values random without knowing what it make.

Well, I guess it doesn't matter how many changes were made. When reading some CCC discussions not so long ago I got an impression, that the term clone should be applied only to those engines, which are distributed with a license violation of some other engine. However I totally agree with the ethical aspect of your opinion.

BTW, I've got two questions about licensing:
1) Does participation in a championship of a closed source private derivative comply with the GPL (if no reference to the original engine is given)?
2) What can I do with an engine, which source code was released without any license at all? And if it was released not by the author, but someone else?

ThinkingALot wrote:

pedrox wrote:I take the source code of Gull, I change three random values, I change the name as SquarknII and I keep it private but promoted it in multiple Web pages as a new and original engine and I play in the world championship. Your call it a derivative?

You can even make it commercial .

pedrox wrote:I can call derivative Toga, Fire, Ivanhoe or Houdini and others but not to an engine as SquarknII where the author takes a code and change 3 values random without knowing what it make.

Well, I guess it doesn't matter how many changes were made. When reading some CCC discussions not so long ago I got an impression, that the term clone should be applied only to those engines, which are distributed with a license violation of some other engine. However I totally agree with the ethical aspect of your opinion.

BTW, I've got two questions about licensing:
1) Does participation in a championship of a closed source private derivative comply with the GPL (if no reference to the original engine is given)?
2) What can I do with an engine, which source code was released without any license at all? And if it was released not by the author, but someone else?

(1) is not possible, at least for the usual ICGA/ACCA/CCT tournaments. The actual author has to enter the program, and the program can not be based on an existing program. So no derivatives allowed in serious tournaments.

(2) sounds like a blatant copyright infringement, since the original author is the copyright holder for anything he wrote. I don't see how anyone _else_ could release the source legally.

hyatt wrote: (1) is not possible, at least for the usual ICGA/ACCA/CCT tournaments. The actual author has to enter the program, and the program can not be based on an existing program. So no derivatives allowed in serious tournaments.

Thanks!

hyatt wrote: (2) sounds like a blatant copyright infringement, since the original author is the copyright holder for anything he wrote. I don't see how anyone _else_ could release the source legally.

Looks like it's impossible to verify whether Ippolit is really public domain or someone just published it without the author's permission...