Speedcubedb Shutting Down (It's Back Up and Running)

[Deleted member 69688]

I deliberately phrased my post in terms of "free software" because this discussion is meaningless if you're not at least aware of the distinction between "free" and "open source", or even those two terms and "free and open source". (You can look this up on Wikipedia yourself.)

it is free to use. and i do gladly share my code under my conditions and even teach how to write it, as i did with many programmers in the community, and as many other programmers do.

What? Have you actually read the GPL? It grants zero provisions to arbitrarily relicense the code. The only permissible "relicensing", if you even want to call it that, is that the GPL is often used in a "version x or later" form, so the Free Software Foundation could, in theory, release a GPL v4 that's essentially public domain. They have not done that, they likely never will, and even if they did, whether it's enforceable is questionable. (There is, however, precedent to this: the FSF updated the GFDL at one point to allow for relicensing to CC-BY-SA, by Wikipedia's request. That is still a copyleft licence – not a "you can do whatever you want" licence.)

I have read it well, and i'm not interested any non programmer to add comments to the code and have oneself listed as one of the contributers or have the Cubicle legally fork it and publish it under their name (as they branded algdb) while removing mine as James suggested in a perfect legal sense.

The fact that people do violate the GPL is not an implication that violating the GPL is legal in any sense. The original copyright holders do have the right to sue and revoke the distribution rights granted by the GPL. It's not like proving GPL violations is impossible either; FFmpeg used to do that, a lot.

not knowing my code was stolen without credit (as some well respected cube manufacturer has done, and caught them) or going into litigation, is something i prefer to avoid. so, another one of my reasons i prefer not to GPL-3 it.

Don't get me wrong, I think this is absolutely petty of James Chang. I too, would prefer if you'd released your projects as free software, but I'm not going to demand that you do it (and in fact, I haven't; we've talked before and I never once brought this up directly to you because I don't think it's that important).

well, exactly. i respect anyone's prerogative to choose their own licencing (GPL included). I just believe that forcing or implying malice to my intention will convince me doing so.

 

[Lucas Garron]

well, exactly. i respect anyone's prerogative to choose their own licencing (GPL included).

This is important!
Although I have strong views that GPL licensing has the best practical tradeoffs for the community, Gil has a right to release his software under his own license. I respect that and appreciate what he is trying to build.

- ksolve+ is free software. (GPL v2+)

a prime example of it is Scrambow ( https://github.com/Owstin/scrambow ), which pretty much copied Lucas Garron's and other's hard, GPL3 code into a free to use MIT, which is now used in commercial software.

Just to clear some things up, ksolve+ and scrambow are unlicensed. (Back from the day when we all freely built on each others' code without asking. This was never "okay" from a legal perspective, but the people involved knew each other and no one was trying to make any money off it.) There may be some copies of these libraries floating around with a supposed license attached, but I'm fairly sure that no one has contacted enough code authors for either of these to be safely used.

(Note that cubing.js will soon provide nearly all the functionality of both those. Part of the motivation for cubing.js was actually to make replacements for these tools available with with a clear license.)

when there are so many other parralel software, such as the amazing Lucas Garron's cubing.js ( https://github.com/cubing/cubing.js )

While I appreciate the shout-out, I'd like to make clear that Tom Rokicki deserves just as much credit for working on cubing.js! :-D

 

[CodingCuber]

I honestly find it incredible that there are people trying to suggest that Gil is not for the community considering the number of things he has done to better it. Not only that, but people continue to attack him for not making his sites open-source despite raising perfectly valid reasons. He's been doing this stuff for longer than most of you and I would like to think he has some idea what he is talking about. If you can create open-source alternatives as great as Gil's work, go ahead. I really think he deserves more respect than what he is getting.

 

[Tabe]

I deliberately phrased my post in terms of "free software" because this discussion is meaningless if you're not at least aware of the distinction between "free" and "open source", or even those two terms and "free and open source". (You can look this up on Wikipedia yourself.).

I'm well aware of the difference. I would, however, venture to guess that most people mean "no cost" when they say free as relates to software unless the term is specifically called out otherwise. Hence my reply.

And it's irrelevant anyway. It's Gil's software. He can do with it whatever he wants and is under absolutely no obligations to anyone in terms of giving away the source, making it "free software" or anything else. And to impugn his character or imply ill intent because he isn't doing that is just gross.

 

[qwr]

I deliberately phrased my post in terms of "free software" because this discussion is meaningless if you're not at least aware of the distinction between "free" and "open source", or even those two terms and "free and open source". (You can look this up on Wikipedia yourself.)

You're completely correct and I (too) was being sloppy with my language.

Well, as someone who has been teaching computer science for the last 20 years, i can tell you there are many flaws in open source.

I am glad for you that you have been teaching CS for 20 years, but I am concerned that pretty much everything you said here about the GPL is wrong. I don't usually do this but I feel like I have to clear up the misunderstandings here. Here is a quick guide https://choosealicense.com/licenses/gpl-3.0/

One of which, is that anyone is allowed to fork your existing code, overwrite ones name one, and publishing it as one's own while removing all credit. --- and it will be completely legal and according to the agreement of the GPL.

No. the GPLv3 requires a minimum of a copyright statement (which includes the author's name), a notice, and the full license. Also, when modifying GPLv3 code, you must clearly write out which modifications you have made. See https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/4582

There are many closed code application that i know that are using GPL-3 opensource code, yet there is no way one can prove that and do something about it.

There have been many lawsuits over not following the GPL license, ex. the BusyBox lawsuits. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Legal_status

a prime example of it is Scrambow ( https://github.com/Owstin/scrambow ), which pretty much copied Lucas Garron's and other's hard, GPL3 code into a free to use MIT, which is now used in commercial software.

I do not know the situation with this program but arbitrary relicensing is definitely not allowed. @xyzzy covers this.

The other, is that you give up the ownership of your code to the free software foundation, so the code is not really yours. Its in the very few lines of the GPL licence.

This is not true either. You may be confused that the license is written by the FSF, but you retain all copyrights. https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/9694

also, your claim is a false one, because a year ago, Saransh Grover (WCA Vice Chair), Caleb Hoover (the creatore of lets cube) and James Chang (the cubicle co founder) have started an opensource algdb.net ( https://github.com/cubing/algdb ) which was abandoned just like the old algdb, and unlike your claimes - it was never picked up by the members of the community.

I have never heard of this project and I believe if this was more publicized on the original algdb website then it would've taken off. But that is speculation.

Being upset that somebody is giving you something for free but not in the exact way you want is pretty much the definition of entitlement. What other companies or people have done with their software doesn't matter. And, last I looked, speedcubedb IS free. It's just not open source.

I make no demands on anyone. By the way, free is used in the sense of freedom here. Just be aware that cubing software has a strong history of free software (covered by @xyzzy), including all of the official WCA's websites and scramblers. You are free to license the software however you want. I stand by the statement that not making the software free is a deviation from the spirit of the cubing community's programs (to be clear, so was the original algdb.net).

 

[Deleted member 69688]

You're completely correct and I (too) was being sloppy with my language.


No. the GPLv3 requires a minimum of a copyright statement (which includes the author's name), a notice, and the full license. Also, when modifying GPLv3 code, you must clearly write out which modifications you have made. See https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/4582

yet *I* have no way to prove my code was used.

There have been many lawsuits over not following the GPL license, ex. the BusyBox lawsuits. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Legal_status

and like i said, i don't have the time, will or money to go into litigation.

This is not true either. You may be confused that the license is written by the FSF, but you retain all copyrights. https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/9694

from the FSF themselves: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#AssignCopyright .

I make no demands on anyone. By the way, free is used in the sense of freedom here. Just be aware that cubing software has a strong history of free software (covered by @xyzzy), including all of the official WCA's websites and scramblers. You are free to license the software however you want. I stand by the statement that not making the software free is a deviation from the spirit of the cubing community's programs (to be clear, so was the original algdb.net).

yes, but you did make rude, public assumptions about my and other well respected developers "intentions" that have made a conscientious decision not to follow the path which others, and specifically you, chose. instad of asking, trying to understand or even to "convince" me of your "righteous" ways. this is an antagonistic, argumentative and condescending behaviour.

you can just as well tell Chris Tran that not publicizing his hard earned work on formulating lubricants should be publicly publicized, then questioning his moral and intentions.

that's a toxic behaviour which should be condemned.

 

[xyzzy]

from the FSF themselves: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#AssignCopyright .

This applies specifically to projects spearheaded by the FSF that require copyright assignment, not other projects.

 

[qwr]

from the FSF themselves: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#AssignCopyright .

That is for contributing to FSF's projects.

I reserve my opinions on non-free software. To call my legitimate concerns about the benefits of software to the speedcubing community toxic is absurd. (Free software is inherently tied to the idea of software. Copyleft and the concept of intellectual property itself is a whole different debate.)

 

[kubesolver]

To call my legitimate concerns about the benefits of software to the speedcubing community toxic is absurd.

No, You don't have legitimate concerns.

If I get it right. The only concern of yours is that somehow having software closed-source makes it suspicious and questionable.

This is absurd.

 

[CodingCuber]

No, You don't have legitimate concerns.

If I get it right. The only concern of yours is that somehow having software closed-source makes it suspicious and questionable.

This is absurd.

This right here. Sums it up perfectly in one paragraph.

 

[qwr]

No, You don't have legitimate concerns.

If I get it right. The only concern of yours is that somehow having software closed-source makes it suspicious and questionable.

This is absurd.

The nature of closed-source software is antithetical to the user's freedoms. In today's day and age, there is absolutely no reason to use proprietary software if a reasonable free software alternative exists.

 

[Deleted member 69688]

The nature of closed-source software is antithetical to the user's freedoms. In today's day and age, there is absolutely no reason to use proprietary software if a reasonable free software alternative exists.

while bad mouthing everyone who think and act otherwise.

 

[Deleted member 69688]

I respect your opinion, however you still haven’t answered how not making your hard work open source is suspicious.
Also, do you have a link to any open-source projects you have made by chance?

why do you feed a troll that hijacked the thread to promote his own agenda?

 

[qwr]

I respect your opinion, however you still haven’t answered how not making your hard work open source is suspicious.

Do you understand my previous reply?

Also I don't know how my projects are relevant, but since you asked: github.com/jxu

 

[xyzzy]

I've spoken with Gil privately, and my 2 microcents:

I also know what Gil's concerns were when he decided to not make the source public, and while I'm generally pro-free software, I can at least sympathise with those concerns. (Plus: Cubicle being hypocritical about one of Gil's sites being done with SCS and thereby refusing to cooperate, as if they didn't slap their own logo over AlgDb and CubePB while letting those sites rot. I still only have one side of the picture, but that side now paints TC in an extremely bad light and it seems like nobody at TC is interested in defending their honour anyway.)

The topic of whether we should try to steer the cubing community's software projects towards free software (like the examples I listed before) versus proprietary software (SCDB, CubeDesk, etc.) is an important topic to discuss, but perhaps not the right one to discuss now while everyone is on edge and not really listening to each other.

 

[kubesolver]

Can we at least agree that you can be a good, honest, helpful person while not willing to share your code at the same time?

 

[DuckubingCuber347]

Well I missed a very big argument. I'm not going to go to in depth in my little post but I would like to say to @qwr that you have a horrible attitude and I have lost a ton of respect. Gil can do whatever he wants with his time and resources, to say he is required to make it "open-source" or "free-source" is completely contorted. He is completely in control, from what I see your argument is basically "Well, that's what others have done", "It's the whole spirit of cubing to make your sources FREE!!". No, if he doesn't want to do this you can ask him civil questions and not make meaningless accusations, or, if you want to have an argument about this you can have a private conversation (yes, you have that ability on SS you've been here longer than I, you should know this) and discuss it with him instead of turning a good thread into a toxic place, (as much as you don't want to be called that, it's true) which Sub1Hour had just called "civil".

I don't want to get carried away so I'll just make it clear. Knock it off. It's Gil's choice and if you want to whine about and embarrass yourself in a baseless argument than you should take the advice of others and create your own algorithm database and if you still think that Gil is incorrect and arrogant and doesn't actually care, then I want you to provide me a reason why you can't create you own.

 

[Mike Hughey]

The nature of closed-source software is antithetical to the user's freedoms. In today's day and age, there is absolutely no reason to use proprietary software if a reasonable free software alternative exists.

False. There is a reason: Someone has developed proprietary software that is usefully better than the corresponding free software alternative (even if the free software is a "reasonable alternative", it is not quite as good), and that person is afraid of having their software illegally stolen if it becomes open source.

This is an extremely valid reason to not produce open source code today. Illegal stealing of open source happens all the time, and litigation to deal with it is usually not practical. When making the choice to make something open source, one has to weigh whether or not this is important. That decision should be respected, no matter what decision the person makes.

 

[Tabe]

I make no demands on anyone.

No, you just say "I am suspicious of [them]" if they don't. That's essentially a demand. "Make it open source exactly how I want or I'll publicly impugn your character" - since that's exactly what happened here. Surely you must see just how wrong that is.

 

[BenChristman1]

I’m not going to get into the debate about what I think is right or wrong, but I just want to thank @Gil.zussman for opening up SCDB again. While he may not be making any money off of it (aside from donations, obviously), it will be able to be used by so many more people this way. Thanks again for opening it back up, and for creating it in the first place, Gil!