[HN Gopher] Stockfish vs. ChessBase, Round 1
___________________________________________________________________
Stockfish vs. ChessBase, Round 1
Author : rococode
Score : 80 points
Date : 2022-07-23 04:44 UTC (18 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (lichess.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (lichess.org)
| synu wrote:
| Is there any steel man for what ChessBase is doing here? Even
| their argument at the end of the article that perhaps they should
| be punished, but it wouldn't be fair not to allow them to
| continue to monetise stockfish seems pretty weak.
| Quarrel wrote:
| Agreed.
|
| Also, where is the src for the original release of Fat Fritz 2?
| They released a cut down version which they then released
| partial src for, but irrespective, they still distributed GPL
| code so owe the recipients the full src.
|
| While I hope chessbase lose this badly, losing all rights to
| distribute stockfish code in any form, I still think they
| should also be forced to comply with the license they chose to
| use code from & release the full src.
| colechristensen wrote:
| They're just boasting excessively and failing to share source
| code that probably wouldn't actually contribute anything.
|
| Yea they should be behaving differently but both parties are
| being a bit childish. Settle for an apology and a code release
| and be done with it.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| I fail to see how Stockfish is being childish here. Sounds
| like ChessBase was given ample opportunity to comply (release
| the actual source) and tried to weasel out of it (by
| releasing a modified copy of their new engine's source which
| hides the secret sauce). Even so, Stockfish only tried to
| revoke the license when they came to find out ChessBase had
| ignored the GPL requirements of Stockfish with not one, but
| two of the engines they sell.
|
| How far should you let someone fuck around with your license
| terms before you decide to exercise the nuclear option?
| notacoward wrote:
| > How far should you let someone fuck around with your
| license terms before you decide to exercise the nuclear
| option?
|
| Game theory (specifically the iterated prisoners' dilemma)
| says: once. Many results from psychology - especially
| parenting - support the same conclusion. Both
| punishment/retribution for bad behavior and reward for
| improving behavior should be swift and unambiguous. It's
| ChessBase's turn to cooperate and show some good faith.
| Words alone won't do it.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| This isnt at all related to rhe original topic but if you
| like game theory, you'll love this paper[1]. (Tl;dr tit-
| for-tat isn't the optimal strategy after all).
|
| Also, in repeated prisoner's dilemma _with random errors_
| , it has been long known that tit-for-tat isn't the best
| strategy either.
|
| [1]: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/26/10409.full
| cmeacham98 wrote:
| > Settle for an apology and a code release and be done with
| it
|
| My understanding is that ChessBase previously "released the
| code", and by "released the code" I mean released an
| intentionally neutered version that didn't include all the
| code that was still not in compliance with the license.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-23 23:02 UTC)