51–60 of 261 posts
"In particular, the license states that if one redistributes a program derived from our work, the corresponding modifications of our sources and all information needed to build that program must be made available. Only after explicitly informing Albert Silver (the author of the net in Fat Fritz 2) of a license violation have matching C++ sources, but not the net weights, been made available. Obviously, we condemn the approach taken."
> 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?
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".
Looks like OP didn't clean up the url while submitting, it defaulted to page title.
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".
I'd suggest: "Our (Stockfish) lawsuit against Chessbase"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree. Likely a quick checkmate in court.
Stockfish has an opportunity to make money here. No?
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…
Any company past circa 2002sh or so, and definitely by 2005, is intimately aware of their intellectual property responsibilities, and, it's the opposite problem that I've run into - in which tons of strawmen are thrown up as to the danger of infecting products with open source licenses makes it dangerous to touch the code. One of the reasons why BSD licenses are so attractive to corporations, is that they run the low…
"Non-starter" is a gross mischaracterization for GPLv3 for most companies, even most software companies, considering there is quite a bit of GPLv3 software in a modern GNU+Linux distro that they likely rely on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Would this be legal?
> 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.