Re: computer-go: Sharing Go modules

[Daniel Bump <bump@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mark Boon wrote:

> I don't see there's a lack of interest for go programming, but in order to
> give it the boost I think it currently needs there has to be a means for
> newcomers to be able to jump-start a Go project. Otherwise all the
> enthusiasm of those new people will be absorbed by the trivial tasks and at
> best after a few years of building the rudimentary beginnings of a Go
> program they are lured away by well paid consultancy jobs (like me :-). Or
> they just give up and start doing other exciting stuff.

This is certainly one reason that Go programs are not stronger
than they are today: until recently anyone entering the field
had to start from scratch. 

Your decision to release your code will help.

> The GNU Go project is one way to do this and I'm impressed with the progress
> they made so far. But joining that project is not the same as trying to
> build your own Go program based on your own principal ideas.
>
> The modules I plan to make available are two tactical reading modules, an
> influence module and a pattern-matcher. These are essential parts of a Go
> program. Every single program worth something has these in one way or
> another. And they have been made over and over again, which takes many
> months of work each time. I have expressly designed them to be as
> independent as possible from specific data defintions as possible. I don't
> think that most of those who already started a Go program will suddenly
> start using these modules in favour of the ones they made themselves. But I
> have some small hope that some day there will be a few people with a few new
> ideas who can use these basic building blocks to enable them to more quickly
> get to test those ideas. And hopfully some more people will be contributing
> a few more of those building blocks.
> 
> One of the things I also would like to see is that other people make their
> influence modules in a similar fashion as I did, so that there come
> available a choice of different ways of calculating influence that can be
> plugged and played with.
> 
> I've got to stop this rant. Work to do. Some last thoughts: I probably
> should look at the GPL to see under what conditions I should make my stuff
> available, and any java2c compilers out there for those who can't bear to
> use Java?

About the licensing issue it seems that your principle choices
are the GPL or something like X11 license. The big difference
is that the X11 license allows use of your code in commercial
software that does not release its source code. The GPL
insists that if someone distributes a program that contains your
software in question, the distributed program must also be
free source. It seems to me that you might prefer the GPL but of
course you will decide that.

The thing to stay away from is a license that prohibits
commercial reuse. The OpenGo and Jan van der Steen's software
are licensed under such terms. Fortunately I think OpenGo is
reconsidering their license.

License issues are discussed in depth in:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html

Daniel Bump