You'll notice I didn't mention copyright, and that's because I don't think it's relevant. I think your analysis is correct. Keep in mind too that Stockfish – the engine I work on, although I wasn't at the time – was the subject of a high-profile defense of the GPL in Germany: https://stockfishchess.org/blog/2021/our-lawsuit-against-che.... That case was different as it involved wholesale copying of the source code, rather than porting ideas. Ideas shouldn't be copyrightable.

But copyright and plagiarism are orthogonal, and questions of morality are much more tied to the latter. It would be illegal (in the United States) for me to publish a copy of Nineteen Eighty-Four, but not immoral. It was not immoral, in my view, for Aaron Swartz to try to liberate JSTor articles.

That doesn't make plagiarism acceptable, either. And therefore, I'm willing to call it out when I see it.

Have you contemplated the deep irony that your hobby stole mastery of chess from mankind, forever?

Now you're demoralized because of... artificial intelligence?

Edit: I'll leave the original bon mot in place. Among other things, I'm curious about your answer to the question. But you deserve a more topical reply as well.

My response in this thread was prompted by @Sp00ph's post[0], which is straightforwardly an accusation of infringement.

You seem more interested in credit, which is a third thing aside from infringement or plagiarism. I would not say that infringement and plagiarism are actually 'orthogonal', perfect plagiarism is, after all, infringement.

Credit is the odd one out of the three. I think it's entirely reasonable to want it, and even to open an issue demanding it (kind of).

But what I want to note about your post: it's hostile. It's aggressive. It's mean. It offers the person you're replying to no avenue to remedy your anger.

I think that's shitty behavior and you shouldn't do that.

https://github.com/adamtwiss/coda/issues/15#issuecomment-519...