|
|
|
|
|
|
by boarquantile
1953 days ago
|
|
|
ITT: People missing the point by making it about software licenses, when the real issue is lying about the product. ChessBase could easily comply with any open source license by linking the full source code, including the method they used to generate NN weights (if they think the license applies here as well), in a footnote. It would still be a scam, because their claims of superiority, originality ("almost from scratch"), and innovation (see the funny part about technology from Japan) are wrong, and purposely so. |
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_(copyright)
For instance, let's look at the BSD license. It requires copyright notices in source code to be preserved. That means that it reserves the attribution right.
The original license required them in executable code; the two-clause version relaxes it; it doesn't demand any expression of attribution in the compiled code.
However, it does not appear to fully waive the attribution right; it requires the copyright notices and license clauses to remain in the source code. The compiled code is still the original author's copyright; nothing in the license says that it isn't.
If someone claims they developed it, it's infringement on the attribution copyright, even though they have the license-granted right to redistribute the code without making such deceptive claims.
IANAL, but if you're going to plagiarize, I suspect the safest bet is to pick something that has lapsed into the public domain, not something with copyrights and licenses in it.