Hacker News Reader

Comment by sillysaurusx | Hacker News Reader

I already wrote this much in your original post. If you disagree with this, why haven't you provided a rejoinder there?

Mostly because I have a job interview today and I'm pretty nervous. Sorry; I didn't mean to ignore you.

My reply is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27905267 ; I'd be curious to get your thoughts on it.

View on HN

Totally unrelated but good luck today with your interview! You have a stranger on the internet rooting for you

That means a lot to me. Thank you.

It’s so dumb to even be worried about it. I’m going to ask them to invert a binary tree on a whiteboard.

Nonetheless, I’ll take your energy and channel it into an interview win, anime style. https://youtu.be/pktMqkfvoBM

Just a heads up, your link has a trailing semi-colon, which deters from just clicking on it to go to the destination. Although it probably doesn't matter any more, as the entire post was marked dupe and removed.

In any case, good luck with the interview!

Hey, thank you for that :) I never remember whether HN strips all punctuation after urls or just periods. And thanks for the good luck charm.

It’s really an interesting question to me, so if you have thoughts on the NN weight distribution issue, I’d be curious to hear them independent of whether the post is on the front page. I honestly don’t know how to properly distribute NN weights according to a license, which is a weird feeling since I’ve released quite a few.

I suppose a tensorflow checkpoint would be fine. It just seems insane to me that Fat Fritz would refuse to do that after releasing their source code, given that they have to distribute the weights anyway with their program. I was trying to apply the principle of charity, but it’s true the company may have unilaterally refused to “release the weights” (somehow) even if it harmed their position and resulted in a lawsuit.

Probably because new weights are the only thing they brought to the table, rest of it was just stockfish so it didn't hurt business interest to reveal generic stockfish source, once people realised Fat Fritz is just stockfish.

In terms of GPL violation, I think if you are serious about the subject, you should simply shoot a mail to FSF, I am sure they could get back with something definitive. Personally (and IANAL) I do not believe in this case there is any ML specific nuance. As I understand, GPL demands you reveal source code to the full extant where it can grant its users the ability to recompile the software themselves. To that end, you can't omit any critical source file, because then the program doesn't compile. From this perspective, the model file is no different from any source code file, its absence renders the software un-compilable. Editing the model would still be same as editing source, thus still falls within GPL.

However, I don't know what the implication could be, if the model wasn't baked into final executable, and instead was loadable at runtime.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com