#179, the rules set by SF, you don’t like?
github.com/official-stockfish/Stockfish/blob/master/Copying.txt?
Let‘s wait and see what is going to happen.
The hyperlink on 'same painful experience'(in the Lichess article) leads to the official statement by Stockfish so check that out for those inquiring about License issues.
Have shared the link below.
blog.stockfishchess.org/post/643239805544792064/statement-on-fat-fritz-2Kudos to Lichess for bringing this to our attention!
It might be legal per the agreements about copying Stockfish, but morally it's a dick move IMO. The reason why SF is free to copy and fork is so that it can be improved, and in turn those improvements can be copied and improved further by others. That's the "ethos" of FOSS. For Chessbase to copy SF, make some changes AND THEN PUT THOSE CHANGES BEHIND A PAID PRODUCT (also without crediting SF for doing 99.999% of the work) is scummy and against what FOSS is about. Legally, this might be OK but morally it is not.
Thx Lichess! Lichess was, is, and will always be the best chess site!
#194
From the link you shared:
Conditions
License and copyright notice
State changes
Disclose source
Same license
They did not state changes nor disclose any code.
#199 That's the problem though - Chessbase (and any other companies) will only care about legality, not morality, when doing something like this. There should definitely be a way to prevent this legally with licensing/something else, rather than relying on people being nice (which never seems to work :( ).
Even legally this is shaky ground, whether 'source code' includes neural net parameters.
why would anyone even pay for a chess engine when there are free ones out there is beyond me...
what, you beat latest stockfish in 10/10 games and you're now bored, looking for something stronger? :D
