Re: OpenGo Status

[Matt Gokey <mgokey@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Jeffrey Greenberg wrote:
> >
> > I've been ready to release the OpenGo code for about a week now, and I
> > see that some of you have already been perusing the site.  What's
> > holding it up is the license agreement.  I am preferring the following
> > scheme over the GNU Public License V.2:
> >     - The license enables the use of the software for research /
> > non-commercial purposes.
> >     - The software will be copyrighted.
> >     - Contributors will join the copyright.  I will be the initial
> > gateway for adding contributions, after which the copyright holders
> > will elect (or advise) to add further contributors.  (There are issues
> > here about active and inactive contributors, etc etc.  I'm trying to
> > work this out with a lawyer.)
> >     - A license from the copyright holders will be required to
> > use/modify the software for commercial use.
> >     - Distribution of the package can be done without license.
> >
> > I hope to complete this this week.   I really want to get the whole
> > package out for comment and contribution as soon as I can.
> >
> > Please let me know what you feel about this licensing scheme.  Please
> > keep in mind that the idea is enable contributions, sharing of code,
> > *and* allow sharing of commercial reward if there is to be any.

Some thoughts on this:

Perhaps the GNU Libray GPL would be better suited to this work?  It sounds like
that is the type of conditions you are talking about and would still allow use in
a commercial product.

The OpenGo scope as it stands now is only infrastructure code and would do no
winning on its own, true it may assist programmers with go projects, but the
playing engine is the meat.   Hypothetically, if I had what I thought was a
winning engine, I could certainly develop a workable program without using any
OpenGo code.  Therefore, it is my opinion that we embrace the free software
concept for this poject entirely - that is the OpenGo understood as a go program
framework, use the GNU Library GPL and sit back and enjoy the ride.

Now, if a go engine were to also enter this arena, perhaps a different licensing
scheme would be in order for that project and I believe that if OpenGo:the engine
project were to come to be it should be maintained as a separate entity from
OpenGo:the framework.

One other thing.  Perhaps publishing the OpenGo interface specifications as a
pseudo-standard would be a useful endeavor, allowing others to develop OpenGo
compliant systems which could be easily interfaced with any OpenGo compliant
engine...

Matt