Demand trial by combat. Opening move, e4.
Our lawsuit against ChessBase
11–20 of 261 posts
Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase
#12Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase
#13>Due to Chessbase’s repeated license violations, leading developers of Stockfish have terminated their GPL license with ChessBase permanently. However, ChessBase is ignoring the fact that they no longer have the right to distribute Stockfish, modified or unmodified, as part of their products.
Can they just do that? How can software really be considered free if the maker can later take away your permission to use it?
Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase
#14In an online course recently, one module involved an API with an attribution requirement that neither the instructor nor any student was aware of - they specifically described it as free use, no attribution required, because they were unaware. Despite there having been more than 20k previous students, I was the first person to mention mention this and link to the clause, and the instructor was surprised. Almost every…
This is entirely inaccurate. Chessbase is a company, and has been well aware of these licensing issues. They've purposefully renamed and scrubbed OS code to sell it for profit and pass it on as their own.
Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase
#15In an online course recently, one module involved an API with an attribution requirement that neither the instructor nor any student was aware of - they specifically described it as free use, no attribution required, because they were unaware. Despite there having been more than 20k previous students, I was the first person to mention mention this and link to the clause, and the instructor was surprised. Almost every…
Just look in the about/credits link in just about any studio's game or software product and you will see it is standard practice to look over and include licenses as needed of all 3rd party libraries and code bases used in development and credit them as appropriate.
While the end user might be sloppy on checking the license aspect, developers certainly are aware at some stage, especially commercial developers by the time they create or modify their about dialog.
Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase
#16Demand trial by combat. Opening move, e4.
Best by Test - Fischer.
Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase
#17>Due to Chessbase’s repeated license violations, leading developers of Stockfish have terminated their GPL license with ChessBase permanently. However, ChessBase is ignoring the fact that they no longer have the right to distribute Stockfish, modified or unmodified, as part of their products. Can they just do that? How can software really be considered free if the maker can later take away your permission to use it?
I don't think they can do that for already-released code unless there's some clause in the licensing. For future code, they can opt to change the licensing as long as it follows the existing licensing and their possible code contribution agreements.
Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase
#18>Due to Chessbase’s repeated license violations, leading developers of Stockfish have terminated their GPL license with ChessBase permanently. However, ChessBase is ignoring the fact that they no longer have the right to distribute Stockfish, modified or unmodified, as part of their products. Can they just do that? How can software really be considered free if the maker can later take away your permission to use it?
>right to distribute
Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase
#19>Due to Chessbase’s repeated license violations, leading developers of Stockfish have terminated their GPL license with ChessBase permanently. However, ChessBase is ignoring the fact that they no longer have the right to distribute Stockfish, modified or unmodified, as part of their products. Can they just do that? How can software really be considered free if the maker can later take away your permission to use it?
See Section 8 of the GPLv3, "termination". https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase
#20>Due to Chessbase’s repeated license violations, leading developers of Stockfish have terminated their GPL license with ChessBase permanently. However, ChessBase is ignoring the fact that they no longer have the right to distribute Stockfish, modified or unmodified, as part of their products. Can they just do that? How can software really be considered free if the maker can later take away your permission to use it?
The termination clause has always existed in the GPL, including the specific ways it can come into effect. It's the teeth of the GPL.