RE: computer-go: Sharing Go modules

["Mark Boon" <tesuji@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the pointer to the GNU GPL site. Darren Cook also recommended the
OpenSource license. Upon closer inspection of the GPL it doesn't look very
suitable. I don't intend to require that anyone who uses it to publish their
own source as well. And I definitely don't want any possible reciprocal
effect of me being required to publish other software that already uses it
as well. I wouldn't develop under such a license myself so I don't see why I
would require it of others. Same for the OpenGo license.

The OpenSource license seems more like what I intend to do, except that I'm
missing something. It seems reasonable to me to require anyone who uses my
modules, in whole or in part, to include a notice of the fact. Similar as in
scientific publications, where if it is based on other research or papers, a
reference has to be included. Other than that the OpenSource license seems
fine by me. Or am I being too vain to wish people to include a sentence like
"This software uses the Tesuji Software Go library" either in the manual or
on the screen?

    Mark

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Daniel Bump
> Sent: Friday, May 18, 2001 3:24 PM
> To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: tesuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; gnugo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: computer-go: Sharing Go modules
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>