Re: [gnugo-devel] gGo is no more free software :-(

[<address@hidden>]

> Hi there!
> 
> Sad news here:
> 
> gGo went closed-source. See the License session in the FAQ:

The current version of gGo is closed course. I've had an email discussion with 
Peter Strempel <address@hidden> about it, which is probably best summed up with 
this extract from Peter:

> I am not happy with this decision, not at all. And the reasons for it are
> somewhat ugly. To make it short, some people modified gGo in a way it cheats
> with the client-time feature, so they got a client that prevents they lose
> by time in those 1/1 games. Their opponents complained to IGS PandaNet (what
> I understand, I'd be pretty pissed, too), which complained to me as they saw
> the cheaters were using gGo. They also told the cheated players that it is
> the gGo client that was used. As result I was facing flames and accusations
> from several players for releasing a "cheater-client". PandaNet is not
> amused about this as well.
> 
> I am not willing to accept accusations and flames for the work I invest in
> gGo. I put a lot of time in this project, and don't ask for anything back
> except to be treated with fairness. This did not happen, so I will restrict
> the gGo distribution now to binary-only and not give away the sources. Of
> course people can do the same modifcations to another open source client or
> play via raw telnet, but that won't be _my_ problem.
> 
> As I said, I am not happy with closed source, but Im not simply not willing
> to take any flames for my work. At least PandaNet, who showed some
> understanding for my worries, offered me their webspace to continue my work
> without expenses, as the last thing Im going to do would be to pay for being
> able to give away something for free.
> 
> If IGS considers fixing their protocol so that clients cannot overwrite the
> time settings anymore, I might reconsider that decision. But I am not very
> positive about it. I am overall pretty annoyed by the above story.
> 
> I am aware that some people do not like this decision, but they will have to
> live with it. But I think the vast majority of users only wants to access
> the binary anyways, and use it free of charge. So all changed for them is
> they need to update their bookmark. Wether they can download the sources or
> not is for most people irrelevant (most, not all).

In a different email Peter said:

> I will meet the current programmer who works on IGS in
> January, I want to bring up this issue and see if they are willing to change
> the protocol. But thats always ugly, risks breaking old clients. Until then,
> situation stays as it is now, and I will decide what to do about GPL after
> January.

So there appears to be hope of improvement.

stuart



--    stuart yeates <address@hidden> aka `loam'
  "To err is human--but it feels divine."  --  Mae West
X-no-archive:yes