Your network blocks the Lichess assets!

lichess.org
Donate

Chess Web Programming: Part Nine: Chessground

@AtomikMorphy said in #2:

You foresee no issues with GPL-3.0 license ?

github.com/lichess-org/chessground/blob/master/LICENSE
Really wish Lichess had gone with Apache or MIT... Or at the very least, LGPL.

I wouldn't touch anything GPL with a 10-foot pole. Once you introduce it, any further revisions become derivative works and you can never go proprietary in the future even if you want to.

@AtomikMorphy said in #2: > You foresee no issues with GPL-3.0 license ? > > github.com/lichess-org/chessground/blob/master/LICENSE Really wish Lichess had gone with Apache or MIT... Or at the very least, LGPL. I wouldn't touch anything GPL with a 10-foot pole. Once you introduce it, any further revisions become derivative works and you can never go proprietary in the future even if you want to.

@AtomikMorphy said in #2:

You foresee no issues with GPL-3.0 license ?

github.com/lichess-org/chessground/blob/master/LICENSE
Yeah, it is annoying, I am glad I never used it for my platform.

@AtomikMorphy said in #2: > You foresee no issues with GPL-3.0 license ? > > github.com/lichess-org/chessground/blob/master/LICENSE Yeah, it is annoying, I am glad I never used it for my platform.

@apinindy said in #3:

Really wish Lichess had gone with Apache or MIT... Or at the very least, LGPL.

I wouldn't touch anything GPL with a 10-foot pole. Once you introduce it, any further revisions become derivative works and you can never go proprietary in the future even if you want to.

I agree, I have only been developing software for a little while and luckily the packages I am using does not use GPL. I would have been in trouble otherwise.

@apinindy said in #3: > Really wish Lichess had gone with Apache or MIT... Or at the very least, LGPL. > > I wouldn't touch anything GPL with a 10-foot pole. Once you introduce it, any further revisions become derivative works and you can never go proprietary in the future even if you want to. I agree, I have only been developing software for a little while and luckily the packages I am using does not use GPL. I would have been in trouble otherwise.

isn't it derivative no matter what? I guess different ultimate goals. some of us don,t mind sharing forever. be it code or ideas, or even chess insight.

isn't it derivative no matter what? I guess different ultimate goals. some of us don,t mind sharing forever. be it code or ideas, or even chess insight.

@dboing said in #6:

isn't it derivative no matter what? I guess different ultimate goals. some of us don,t mind sharing forever. be it code or ideas, or even chess insight.
What do you mean "derivative no matter what"?

Some of us would like the option of eventually making something closed source - or someone else being able to.

@dboing said in #6: > isn't it derivative no matter what? I guess different ultimate goals. some of us don,t mind sharing forever. be it code or ideas, or even chess insight. What do you mean "derivative no matter what"? Some of us would like the option of eventually making something closed source - or someone else being able to.

The closed source things would be derivative no matter the original code inspiration or borrowed license, as in there is no real spontaneous individual creation to be owned in all of this, not about the complete object in the end. Only grabbing secrets and wrapping it around previous many single persons work. The little bit of novelty layer obscuring the whole? I may misunderstand the details.

derivative as in using. etc... the licensing is only varnish question. And yes some would want to do that. It might be why some prefer that things keep in the shareable domain and not be used that way. No more Edison-like history of innovations or creation based on the mind's elbow grease of others.

The closed source things would be derivative no matter the original code inspiration or borrowed license, as in there is no real spontaneous individual creation to be owned in all of this, not about the complete object in the end. Only grabbing secrets and wrapping it around previous many single persons work. The little bit of novelty layer obscuring the whole? I may misunderstand the details. derivative as in using. etc... the licensing is only varnish question. And yes some would want to do that. It might be why some prefer that things keep in the shareable domain and not be used that way. No more Edison-like history of innovations or creation based on the mind's elbow grease of others.

@dboing said in #6:

isn't it derivative no matter what? I guess different ultimate goals. some of us don,t mind sharing forever. be it code or ideas, or even chess insight.

Yes, it is about ultimate goals, the GPL license is basically good if you want to build open source software, Lichess wants to promote that, however, if you ever want to build applications, then it is cannot really be used.

@dboing said in #6: > isn't it derivative no matter what? I guess different ultimate goals. some of us don,t mind sharing forever. be it code or ideas, or even chess insight. Yes, it is about ultimate goals, the GPL license is basically good if you want to build open source software, Lichess wants to promote that, however, if you ever want to build applications, then it is cannot really be used.

@dboing I'm for the free software and sharing ideas, etc. As you can see from the wings, I also think lichess should go on.

What I wanted to bring to attention that some software licenses come with legal obligations. Actions you must take. And some licenses impact not only the software they cover, but also surrounding software and maybe even hardware, etc. Parts you might not even have legal rights to share due to other conflicting licenses.

Person including licensed software in their own project should be aware of that. I've read a bunch of licenses and will claim I didn't understand them fully. Neither I'm confident that if I gain understanding in one jurisdiction, it won't have holes in another jurisdiction. When you place your app on the internet the user could be anywhere on the planet and I don't know how to deal with that.

So company writing software should get advice from legally competent people. But single developer realistically won't do that or won't even be aware they should do that. Some have basic legal training, but many don't or they forgot it since it might become important once a year or rarer.

Next thing is that what I've done is auditing software that consists of C and C++ libraries. That's a finite goal. When it's a JavaScript project they tend to have hundreds or thousands of dependencies. Which means you can only do that with tools. And you don't know if next update won't change results of your previous understanding in this legal matter. Because new libraries can get pulled in, existing libraries might change licenses, etc. All this zoo should somehow legally work together.

You can look up about viral nature and tainting associated with GPL. There are better educated people explaining it. It gives more freedom to the software, but less to the developer.

@dboing I'm for the free software and sharing ideas, etc. As you can see from the wings, I also think lichess should go on. What I wanted to bring to attention that some software licenses come with legal obligations. Actions you must take. And some licenses impact not only the software they cover, but also surrounding software and maybe even hardware, etc. Parts you might not even have legal rights to share due to other conflicting licenses. Person including licensed software in their own project should be aware of that. I've read a bunch of licenses and will claim I didn't understand them fully. Neither I'm confident that if I gain understanding in one jurisdiction, it won't have holes in another jurisdiction. When you place your app on the internet the user could be anywhere on the planet and I don't know how to deal with that. So company writing software should get advice from legally competent people. But single developer realistically won't do that or won't even be aware they should do that. Some have basic legal training, but many don't or they forgot it since it might become important once a year or rarer. Next thing is that what I've done is auditing software that consists of C and C++ libraries. That's a finite goal. When it's a JavaScript project they tend to have hundreds or thousands of dependencies. Which means you can only do that with tools. And you don't know if next update won't change results of your previous understanding in this legal matter. Because new libraries can get pulled in, existing libraries might change licenses, etc. All this zoo should somehow legally work together. You can look up about viral nature and tainting associated with GPL. There are better educated people explaining it. It gives more freedom to the software, but less to the developer.