4 ms·

ITT: People missing the point by making it about software licenses, when the real issue is lying about the product. ChessBase could easily comply with any open

ITT: People missing the point by making it about software licenses, when the real issue is lying about the product. ChessBase could easily comply with any open source license by linking the full source code, including the method they used to generate NN weights (if they think the license applies here as well), in a footnote. It would still be a scam, because their claims of superiority, originality ("almost from scratch"), and innovation (see the funny part about technology from Japan) are wrong, and purposely so.

zelphirkalt 6y ago
What are these _open source_ licenses, which require you to link to the full source code? I might not have seen such a license yet. Usually "open source license" equates to MIT license and BSD licenses, which do not require you to link to the source code.
- piva00 6y ago
  AGPL?
  - zelphirkalt 6y ago
    Ah, you mean _free_ software. Why not be more specific and say that in the first place?
    - detaro 6y ago
      a) AGPL (and other Free Software licenses) are also Open Source licenses, Open Source is not "BSD or MIT" b) the comment you originally reply to didn't even claim anything about licenses "requiring" links to the source, just that doing so is one quite clear way of attributing.
      - zelphirkalt 6y ago
        Would you please read exactly what I wrote, and not go and interpret things and then make claims? About (a): I wrote "usually equates", not "is by definition the same as BSD and MIT". Do you not understand, that this means "most people think of MIT or BSD licenses, when they hear open source"? So your point (a) is does not tell me anything I do not know, nor does it somehow "disprove" anything I wrote. You misunderstand what I wrote and make a failed rebuttal. About (b): Read the other comment for the parts of the OP, that associate open source with source code linking. No matter, how much open source fans claim, that free software is part of open source, it does not make it true. Open source does not contain the same garantees for freedoms and therefore cannot be a superset of free software. It is the other way around. Free software makes sure that open source requirements are met and adds requirements on top of that, to make sure user freedoms are preserved. You can go on claiming, that the free software movement is part of your open source movement as much as you want, but that does not make it true. Open source ideology is different from free software ideology and it will not be annexed by open source fans, who claim otherwise. It seems impossible to have a discussion about this on HN, without being downvoted into oblivion. Obviously there is a rather big population on HN, which does not understand the differences of the two and feels like they need to downvote any comment, that tries to differentiate or point to imprecision in wording. Please go and watch a video of Stallman explaining the difference.
        detaro 6y ago
        > this means "most people think of MIT or BSD licenses, when they hear open source" I'd strongly disagree with that too. > Open source does not contain the same garantees for freedoms and therefore cannot be a superset of free software. It is the other way around. Free software makes sure that open source requirements are met and adds requirements on top of that, to make sure user freedoms are preserved. Free Software adds additional requirements, yes. Which is why it can be usefully thought of as a subset of Open Source: AFAIK all common Free Software licenses are recognized as Open Source licenses, and give you the rights expected from an Open Source license, whereas many Open Source licenses do not qualify to be Free Software (and do not guarantee what's expected from Free Software). Certainly in my circles, the vast majority of people working on GPLed software describe what they do as "Open Source".
    - e-v 6y ago
      The difference between 'open source software' and 'free software' has nothing to do with copyleft. The vast majority of open source software licenses are also free software licenses, and vice versa.
      - zelphirkalt 6y ago
        Check out the GNU or FSF websites. Copyleft is an important part obviously, as it is the thing preventing things to be forked, modified and then license changed. Did you ever watch a Stallman talk about the 4 freedoms and how copyleft works? If not, please do so, before writing more untrue things like: "The difference between 'open source software' and 'free software' has nothing to do with copyleft."
        e-v 6y ago
        Please don't patronize me. I am responding to claims, not judging you and will ask you to please do the same. The difference between Open Source and Free software (incidentally, I am in favour of the latter, but this is irrelevant) has to do with ethos and values, not copyleft. From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.en.html: "Among all programs that are open source, only a minuscule fraction are not free." From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....: "The two now describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, essential respect for the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand."
        zelphirkalt 6y ago
        But how does any of this make it untrue, that copyleft is an important aspect, without which the freedoms are not maintained? You quoted 2 phrases, which are not wrong, but which do not argue against what I wrote before. Here are more quotes from the same pages: "Second, when a program's source code carries a weak license, one without copyleft, its executables can carry additional nonfree conditions. Microsoft does this with Visual Studio, for example." It should be quite clear, that, when I can copy a program and modify it and then release under a different license, I can circumvent user freedoms easily. Do you have any counter point to this? What exactly are you trying to tell me?
    - zelphirkalt 6y ago
      For people who did not read the OP and claim otherwise: > ChessBase could easily comply with any open source license by linking the full source code, "any open source", which is unspecific and gives people the wrong picture, as in MIT, BSD. "linking the full source code" - how much clearer does the reference to link source code need to be?
      - e-v 6y ago
        Just because the OP was not specific enough (as they indeed weren't) doesn't make your claim true.
        zelphirkalt 6y ago
        Please cite my "claim", so that I know what you are referring to.
    - piva00 6y ago
      I don't mean anything, I jumped into this with an example and Free Software is Open Source Software, I gave an example of OSS (that also happens to be FS). I didn't make the first comment so reply accordingly. You are the one starting a semantical discussion.
- e-v 6y ago
  Not all 'open source' licenses are 'non-copyleft' or 'permissive' licenses.
  - zelphirkalt 6y ago
    That's why I wrote "usually" and "I might not have seen" ... Can you please _read_ what is written and consider it, before writing things, that I already know might be true?
    - e-v 6y ago
      I was simply pointing out the fact that your claim that '[u]sually "open source license" equates to MIT license and BSD licenses' is simply completely untrue. There are no 'might's or 'usually' here. Both Open Source and Free Software licenses have very clear criteria. There are no licenses which are 'usually' one or the other. They are mostly strictly equivalent.
      - zelphirkalt 6y ago
        Well then, how about you look at the next 10-20 repositories, which interest you and which are labeled "open source" and see what their licenses are? Then you will get a picture of what is "usual". You can also increase N, if you want more indication.
        zaphar 6y ago
        In the spirit of your question I did a quick survey, Apache 2 is the winner by a landslide...
kazinator 6y ago
False claims of authorship (essentially plagiarism) are not entirely outside of the domain of copyright. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_(copyright) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_(copyright) For instance, let's look at the BSD license. It requires copyright notices in source code to be preserved. That means that it reserves the attribution right. The original license required them in executable code; the two-clause version relaxes it; it doesn't demand any expression of attribution in the compiled code. However, it does not appear to fully waive the attribution right; it requires the copyright notices and license clauses to remain in the source code. The compiled code is still the original author's copyright; nothing in the license says that it isn't. If someone claims they developed it, it's infringement on the attribution copyright, even though they have the license-granted right to redistribute the code without making such deceptive claims. IANAL, but if you're going to plagiarize, I suspect the safest bet is to pick something that has lapsed into the public domain, not something with copyrights and licenses in it.

zelphirkalt 6y ago

What are these _open source_ licenses, which require you to link to the full source code? I might not have seen such a license yet. Usually "open source license" equates to MIT license and BSD licenses, which do not require you to link to the source code.

piva00 6y ago
AGPL?
- zelphirkalt 6y ago
  Ah, you mean _free_ software. Why not be more specific and say that in the first place?
  - detaro 6y ago
    a) AGPL (and other Free Software licenses) are also Open Source licenses, Open Source is not "BSD or MIT" b) the comment you originally reply to didn't even claim anything about licenses "requiring" links to the source, just that doing so is one quite clear way of attributing.
    - zelphirkalt 6y ago
      Would you please read exactly what I wrote, and not go and interpret things and then make claims? About (a): I wrote "usually equates", not "is by definition the same as BSD and MIT". Do you not understand, that this means "most people think of MIT or BSD licenses, when they hear open source"? So your point (a) is does not tell me anything I do not know, nor does it somehow "disprove" anything I wrote. You misunderstand what I wrote and make a failed rebuttal. About (b): Read the other comment for the parts of the OP, that associate open source with source code linking. No matter, how much open source fans claim, that free software is part of open source, it does not make it true. Open source does not contain the same garantees for freedoms and therefore cannot be a superset of free software. It is the other way around. Free software makes sure that open source requirements are met and adds requirements on top of that, to make sure user freedoms are preserved. You can go on claiming, that the free software movement is part of your open source movement as much as you want, but that does not make it true. Open source ideology is different from free software ideology and it will not be annexed by open source fans, who claim otherwise. It seems impossible to have a discussion about this on HN, without being downvoted into oblivion. Obviously there is a rather big population on HN, which does not understand the differences of the two and feels like they need to downvote any comment, that tries to differentiate or point to imprecision in wording. Please go and watch a video of Stallman explaining the difference.
      - detaro 6y ago
        > this means "most people think of MIT or BSD licenses, when they hear open source" I'd strongly disagree with that too. > Open source does not contain the same garantees for freedoms and therefore cannot be a superset of free software. It is the other way around. Free software makes sure that open source requirements are met and adds requirements on top of that, to make sure user freedoms are preserved. Free Software adds additional requirements, yes. Which is why it can be usefully thought of as a subset of Open Source: AFAIK all common Free Software licenses are recognized as Open Source licenses, and give you the rights expected from an Open Source license, whereas many Open Source licenses do not qualify to be Free Software (and do not guarantee what's expected from Free Software). Certainly in my circles, the vast majority of people working on GPLed software describe what they do as "Open Source".
  - e-v 6y ago
    The difference between 'open source software' and 'free software' has nothing to do with copyleft. The vast majority of open source software licenses are also free software licenses, and vice versa.
    - zelphirkalt 6y ago
      Check out the GNU or FSF websites. Copyleft is an important part obviously, as it is the thing preventing things to be forked, modified and then license changed. Did you ever watch a Stallman talk about the 4 freedoms and how copyleft works? If not, please do so, before writing more untrue things like: "The difference between 'open source software' and 'free software' has nothing to do with copyleft."
      - e-v 6y ago
        Please don't patronize me. I am responding to claims, not judging you and will ask you to please do the same. The difference between Open Source and Free software (incidentally, I am in favour of the latter, but this is irrelevant) has to do with ethos and values, not copyleft. From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.en.html: "Among all programs that are open source, only a minuscule fraction are not free." From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....: "The two now describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, essential respect for the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand."
        zelphirkalt 6y ago
        But how does any of this make it untrue, that copyleft is an important aspect, without which the freedoms are not maintained? You quoted 2 phrases, which are not wrong, but which do not argue against what I wrote before. Here are more quotes from the same pages: "Second, when a program's source code carries a weak license, one without copyleft, its executables can carry additional nonfree conditions. Microsoft does this with Visual Studio, for example." It should be quite clear, that, when I can copy a program and modify it and then release under a different license, I can circumvent user freedoms easily. Do you have any counter point to this? What exactly are you trying to tell me?
  - zelphirkalt 6y ago
    For people who did not read the OP and claim otherwise: > ChessBase could easily comply with any open source license by linking the full source code, "any open source", which is unspecific and gives people the wrong picture, as in MIT, BSD. "linking the full source code" - how much clearer does the reference to link source code need to be?
    - e-v 6y ago
      Just because the OP was not specific enough (as they indeed weren't) doesn't make your claim true.
      - zelphirkalt 6y ago
        Please cite my "claim", so that I know what you are referring to.
  - piva00 6y ago
    I don't mean anything, I jumped into this with an example and Free Software is Open Source Software, I gave an example of OSS (that also happens to be FS). I didn't make the first comment so reply accordingly. You are the one starting a semantical discussion.
e-v 6y ago
Not all 'open source' licenses are 'non-copyleft' or 'permissive' licenses.
- zelphirkalt 6y ago
  That's why I wrote "usually" and "I might not have seen" ... Can you please _read_ what is written and consider it, before writing things, that I already know might be true?
  - e-v 6y ago
    I was simply pointing out the fact that your claim that '[u]sually "open source license" equates to MIT license and BSD licenses' is simply completely untrue. There are no 'might's or 'usually' here. Both Open Source and Free Software licenses have very clear criteria. There are no licenses which are 'usually' one or the other. They are mostly strictly equivalent.
    - zelphirkalt 6y ago
      Well then, how about you look at the next 10-20 repositories, which interest you and which are labeled "open source" and see what their licenses are? Then you will get a picture of what is "usual". You can also increase N, if you want more indication.
      - zaphar 6y ago
        In the spirit of your question I did a quick survey, Apache 2 is the winner by a landslide...

kazinator 6y ago

False claims of authorship (essentially plagiarism) are not entirely outside of the domain of copyright. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_(copyright) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_(copyright) For instance, let's look at the BSD license. It requires copyright notices in source code to be preserved. That means that it reserves the attribution right. The original license required them in executable code; the two-clause version relaxes it; it doesn't demand any expression of attribution in the compiled code. However, it does not appear to fully waive the attribution right; it requires the copyright notices and license clauses to remain in the source code. The compiled code is still the original author's copyright; nothing in the license says that it isn't. If someone claims they developed it, it's infringement on the attribution copyright, even though they have the license-granted right to redistribute the code without making such deceptive claims. IANAL, but if you're going to plagiarize, I suspect the safest bet is to pick something that has lapsed into the public domain, not something with copyrights and licenses in it.