Author: Roman Hartmann
Date: 02:49:36 05/17/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 17, 2005 at 05:33:02, Jonas Cohonas wrote: >I would think the same if it was a commercial project or if the project was only >based indirectly on another program, but as it is a clone with few lines added >(few is considered relative here of course) i would find it very strange if the >GPL has not covered this scenario in favor of the original programmer. Seen in >light of Toga's arrival on the computer chess stage (where it was originally >passed off as original work) i think Fabien has been more than kind and patient >and the least the Toga author could do is _not_ to treat another persons hard >work as his own property. I also think the 'author' of Toga was treated very nicely for what he did (At least compared to other authors of clones in the past). But I think that's also because Fruit-Toga is playing much stronger than the clones in the past. >An interesting point?... is the right to beta test not reserved the original >owner of a program, meaning that the only "beta testing" a cloner can do is by >submitting his derived work to the public? (i am no expert in GPL). quote from (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic): "The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization. But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL. Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you. " This is one of the things I don't like about the GPL. >>>>But because he also released some game results of Fruit-Toga0.94 he might have >>>>to release it now in fact as the provided game results could be considered a >>>>'release' of the program in some way. >>>> >>>>Roman >>> >>>And why shouldn't he, regardless i mean? >> >>I have no idea. But I'm afraid we will see more behaviour like that in the >>future ... >> >>Roman > >I just hope this hasn't scared off future releases from being open scource. The problem with a program released under the GPL is (IMHO) that anyone can take your ideas/sources but doesn't have to give you anything back. Roman
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.