> Due to Chessbase’s repeated license violations, leading developers of Stockfish have terminated their GPL license with ChessBase permanently. What do they mean by this?
Absent a license, ChessBase has no right to distribute any of the Stockfish code. This simply reverts the code to copyrighted content, much like a book.
Revert is not the correct term. GPL-licensed code is still and always copyrighted, even when GPL-licensed. The GPL is itself a copyright license.
Only CC0/WTFPL/Public Domain are renunciations of copyright.
>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?
Has the GPL ever really been tested in a US court?
My non-expert impression has been that open source licenses and "licenses" that aren't ... explicit contractual agreements between parties (i.e. not just click through or some text in a download) do not have a particularly strong backing with law or case law. Whether or not you "can or can't" do something with regards to effectively making up rules that will be enforced by courts with a blob of text in source code or a check boxes on websites is still somewhat up in the air (somebody who knows things feel free to correct my impressions).
In 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 a possibility in general, but not here. Chessbase has a long history with this sort of thing, and they've been called out repeatedly. They've even settled before, if I recall correctly.
While I think it’s a shame that nobody has been able to sue ChessBase for their software being utter garbage, I will cheer on this equally worthy endeavour.
If company could be sued because their software are garbage, you won't have a lot of company left.
> Due to Chessbase’s repeated license violations, leading developers of Stockfish have terminated their GPL license with ChessBase permanently. What do they mean by this?
I suppose they were providing the stockfish software to Chessbase (and everyone else) under the GPL, but now they won't do that any more. I don't think that prevents somebody sympathetic (if such a person exists) from re-distributing it to Chessbase though.
> I don't think that prevents somebody sympathetic (if such a person exists) from re-distributing it to Chessbase though.
>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?
Has the GPL ever really been tested in a US court? My non-expert impression has been that open source licenses and "licenses" that aren't ... explicit contractual agreements between parties (i.e. not just click through or some text in a download) do not have a particularly strong backing with law or case law. Whether or not you "can or can't" do something with regards to effectively making up rules that will be enfor…
Please note that without any license, the default in the US would be all rights reserved for the copyright holder, and thus does not permit you to redistribute without author's permission. Therefore, that particular argument alone (without some additional fair use or other claim) would likely not fly in court in the violator's favor (i.e. if you did not agree to the GPL attached to it, which license did you think you have that permitted you to redistribute the copyrighted work?)
The current title is "Our lawsuit against ChessBase – Stockfish – open-source Chess Engine", which I found confusing. Is Stockfish being sued? Does it belong to ChessBase? I suggest sticking with the simpler title from the blog, "Our lawsuit against ChessBase".
The GPL's Termination clause allows Stockfish to terminate ChessBase's use of the license, but does anything prevent someone from forking the code and licensing it to Stockfish as an end around? It seems like it would be very difficult to enforce.