[HN Gopher] Open source chess developers warn about a commercial...
___________________________________________________________________
Open source chess developers warn about a commercial engine based
on Stockfish
Author : 1337shadow
Score : 106 points
Date : 2021-02-18 20:35 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (lichess.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (lichess.org)
| wobblyasp wrote:
| As long as the license allowed it, I'm not seeing the issue.
| Sure; it's a less-then-advertised product, but the world is full
| of those.
|
| If people want to drop 100$ on something that doesn't work as
| well as the free alternative, more power to them. People do it
| everyday in the real world.
| gameswithgo wrote:
| The issue is it is fraud
| AntonyGarand wrote:
| While this is something I would expect from a small random
| company, ChessBase is pretty big in the chess world.
|
| For them to promote this "new" engine on their shop[0] feels
| wrong, I would expect them to meet certain quality threshold.
|
| Lichess does mention this in the bottom of the post, which has
| the same feeling:
|
| > Everyone is permitted and encouraged to modify and improve
| code from Stockfish/Leela while giving credit; that is the
| intent of open-source software. Everyone is allowed to copy
| Stockfish/Leela and sell them, provided the terms of the
| Stockfish/Leela license are met. But don't pretend that the
| product being sold is something it isn't.
|
| [0] https://shop.chessbase.com/en/
| cbroadcast wrote:
| "It is sad to see claims of innovation where there has been
| none, and claims of improvement in an engine that is weaker
| than its open-source origins. It is also sad to see people
| appropriating the open-source work and effort of others and
| claiming it as their own."
|
| The license allows to use the code, it does NOT allow taking
| the credit for things you did not do.
|
| There's way too little credit given in open source in general,
| and I'm glad to see people fight back again (it was more
| customary to fight back before 2010).
| tudelo wrote:
| And I might be the only idiot here, but I tried to run
| stockfish from source and it was not an instant process. In
| addition, there isn't really a front end, you essentially end
| up with a CLI to input moves.
|
| And for those who say, hey you, there are prebuilt binaries,
| just download them! Check out this message [1]
|
| " The binaries at the top of the table are fastest, but may not
| support all CPUs. If you don't know which CPU you have, you can
| go down the list and pick the first binary that does not crash.
| "
|
| Yeah okay, a pragmatic set of instructions that can't fail...
|
| From this I think we could see why a product built on top of
| stockfish might make sense, even if the linked product might
| not do as such.
|
| [1]https://stockfishchess.org/download/
| deeeeplearning wrote:
| > Everyone is allowed to copy Stockfish/Leela and sell them,
| provided the terms of the Stockfish/Leela license are met. But
| don't pretend that the product being sold is something it isn't.
|
| What's the issue? Did OS contributors suddenly realize you can
| make money off software? They're upset at marketers doing
| marketing?
|
| Don't understand the downvotes. If they violated the terms of the
| license or did something illegal then sue, otherwise they're just
| whinging.
| cycomanic wrote:
| Apart from the question of legality of removing copyright
| notices/changing authorship (which is definitely a copyright
| violation in some jurisdictions), there is more than just
| legality.
|
| One can (and most people do) condemn some actions even if they
| are technically legal.
| orwin wrote:
| It's a scam (it doesn't even use the best version of stockfish,
| so much for "the best chess engine available").
|
| Moreover, it infringe GPL. I would love if a country started
| enforcing GPL with huge fines. Company-destroying fines.
| gwd wrote:
| The only people who can enforce the GPL are the people who
| own the copyright of the code infringed. They may be able to
| win huge fines, but (with some infamous exceptions) generally
| aim more for compliance than punishment.
| deeeeplearning wrote:
| >It's a scam (it doesn't even use the best version of
| stockfish, so much for "the best chess engine available").
|
| Have you used the internet or turned on a Tv in the last 20
| years? Do you really think Dodge has "The Best Truck in the
| world" or that Verizon really has the "fastest 5g in
| America". This is marketing 101 for any business in the US.
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| If a seller only gets sales because of the ignorance of their
| customers, it's a rip off. I'd be annoyed if my work was being
| used to rip people off, even if no licence terms or laws were
| being broken.
| deeeeplearning wrote:
| Sounds like SOP for American business to me.
| beermonster wrote:
| "It is sad to see claims of innovation where there has been
| none, and claims of improvement in an engine that is weaker
| than its open-source origins. It is also sad to see people
| appropriating the open-source work and effort of others and
| claiming it as their own."
|
| These seem to be their main gripes
| runningmike wrote:
| Sounds like a standard software company...
| enneff wrote:
| They're just letting the community know that they shouldn't
| fall for the scam.
| ufo wrote:
| This article is light on the details about this being a GPL
| license violation or not. The final paragraph also makes it sound
| like Stockfish is under a permissive license (only requiring
| attribution) when in fact it's licensed under the copyleft GPLv3.
| bonzini wrote:
| It was, but according to Wikipedia they sorted that out by
| moving the proprietary neural network out of the executable. If
| this is correct, it means that the source is available and the
| nature of the changes (including removing the original authors)
| should be visible.
| tutfbhuf wrote:
| https://github.com/official-
| stockfish/Stockfish/blob/master/...
|
| Stockfish _is_ currently licensed under GPLv3. Chessbase is
| allowed to sell a modified copy, but only under the same
| license and they have to provide the source.
| bonzini wrote:
| The neural network is just data, but if it's part of the
| executable you need to provide the raw data that is then
| linked into the executable.
| xchaotic wrote:
| This is a natural consequence of releasing an open source
| project. It's the equivalent of leaving a car open with a key,
| documents and an invitation to drive it for free.
| mhh__ wrote:
| It's closer to releasing a genetically engineered racing driver
| for that car.
|
| Anyone else is free to use said driver, but in this case if
| they make him faster they have to make their changes public
| because of the GPL
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| > in this case if they make him faster they have to make
| their changes public because of the GPL
|
| Related to this: the GPL's obligations about sharing the
| source, kick in if you're sharing the binary. It's not
| relevant whether you made any changes yourself. [0] For
| compliance, the lazy derivative product will have to make the
| source available. I wonder if they've done that.
|
| [0] https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2020/fall/why-providing-
| source-...
| mhh__ wrote:
| Stockfish is under the GPL (IIRC) so I wouldn't be that worried.
| im3w1l wrote:
| GPL means you can put a version with proprietary modifications
| in the cloud and sell api access, without contributing anything
| back.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Right. I thought it was an app so my bad.
| im3w1l wrote:
| It is available both for download and in cloud. So they
| would have to pull the download if they dont want to
| release source.
| PeterisP wrote:
| Pulling the download isn't sufficient if it has already
| been downloaded - either they have to offer the source to
| everyone who downloaded, or they have infringed copyright
| by this distribution and can be justifiably sued for
| that.
|
| However, this article implies that nobody really cares
| about them releasing the source, as it seems that it does
| not have any interesting improvements.
| garrtt wrote:
| Clicking the link with lichess installed just opens the app.
| Long-press to open in a new tab.
| enneff wrote:
| FYI the lichess mobile apps have been abandoned in favour of
| the web view, if I recall correctly.
| myle wrote:
| Website is perhaps recommended, but the app still works great
| and is updated from time to time.
| enjeyw wrote:
| I would have assumed that most people interested in chess engines
| are a pretty savvy and will do their research before buying
| anything, making the whole "create a sub-par ripoff" a rather
| ineffective strategy.
| dmurray wrote:
| Not really. Plenty of middling to world-class chess players
| aren't technically literate, but use chess engines for
| preparation. And Chessbase is the biggest name in chess
| software, though they've always had a slightly scummy approach
| to marketing.
| themodelplumber wrote:
| I'm glad the group spoke up. Free software or no, details matter,
| and in this case the details point to false claims and unethical
| behavior:
|
| > It is sad to see claims of innovation where there has been
| none, and claims of improvement in an engine that is weaker than
| its open-source origins. It is also sad to see people
| appropriating the open-source work and effort of others and
| claiming it as their own.
|
| > Everyone is permitted and encouraged to modify and improve code
| from Stockfish/Leela while giving credit; that is the intent of
| open-source software. Everyone is allowed to copy Stockfish/Leela
| and sell them, provided the terms of the Stockfish/Leela license
| are met. But don't pretend that the product being sold is
| something it isn't.
| vdddv wrote:
| Many commenters are missing that the issue is not that an Open
| Source project was repackaged as a commercial project, but that
| the open source origin has been hidden.
| aaron695 wrote:
| > but that the open source origin has been hidden.
|
| What is the specific licensing issue here?
|
| If this is about them not liking the product, fine, but don't
| dirty the open source ethos unless they are breaking the
| license. Part of the problem is the current HN headline
| perhaps.
| orwin wrote:
| It's GPL: its not attributed and the binary is available for
| download while the code isn't open sourced.
| btilly wrote:
| The specific licensing issue is that both are under GPL v3.0.
| Which means that you can sell a derivative, but you have to
| clearly advertise that it wasn't your work, provide source
| upon request, and so on.
|
| They did none of this and so are in copyright violation. And
| so should be sued.
| gwd wrote:
| ...and if they're breaking the license, don't "name and
| shame"; send them a C&D. And if that's ignored, sue them.
|
| Seriously, there's some attitude in open source circles that
| looks down on using the law to achieve compliance. Why bother
| putting up such a carefully thought-out legal document, and
| then whining on a blog when it's broken, instead of using it
| for its intended purpose -- a court of law?
| brutal_chaos_ wrote:
| Quicker, cheaper, and probably feels good in the moment.
| The law can work if you have time and money.
|
| Also, due to the ill view of patents on this forum, I
| imagine people here are simply put off from using the law
| and thus opt for the dopamine hit.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-18 23:01 UTC)