Demand trial by combat. Opening move, e4.
c5
Nf3
Our lawsuit against ChessBase
61–70 of 261 posts
Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase
#62Earlier 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?
Don't think it's a problem to give them the code, as long as your own license isn't terminated.
But it would be a breach of copyright for Chessbase to distribute or modify the code, after their license has been terminated.
Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase
#63In 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…
> Almost everybody skips reading the terms and licenses of things
Yeah, nobody reads this stuff. I've even seen developers fail to understand the implications of the license they're applying to their own code and then get mad when people do things that are allowed.
Most people will not actually go to court over any of this stuff either. Surprising to actually see someone getting sued over licenses nobody reads.
Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase
#64Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase
#65The 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.
Forking the code doesn't fork the copyright ownership. Stockfish still owns the code under their copyright regardless of whether it lives in their repository or in some fork of their codebase. A forked project doesn't have the right to grant people licenses to code which they don't own.
Licences can give the right to sublicense under the same terms. But the GPL does not, and each licensor gets the licence directly from the copyright holder.
Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase
#66I bet it’s next to impossible to prove copyright in this case.
You would need to track down every last contributor and create a legally valid authorship evidence that is recognized under German legal doctrine.
I would bet that having a email or even full name in a git repository is certainly not enough.
This is exactly why for serious open-source projects that big companies depend on, they always creat a legal body, usually consortium and formally establish legal ownership of rights
Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Indeed.
"Your honor, the defendant is distributing my copyrighted work without a license. Make him stop please."
Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think they've revoked even Chessbase's license to use the code. So, not like a book, where if you have the physical copy you can generally read it, but more like a pirated copy of Windows or Oracle, where you owe license fees per user, per core, per day.
I'm not sure if it's settled law on whether or not you need to license to use code...
Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase
#69The 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.
That would be a separate infringement. Once Stockfish wins their case against ChessBase, it would likely mean easier wins on any other infringement cases.
The viral nature of the GPL and other copyleft licenses expressly allow this and put a healthy fear of improper OSS reuse and deployment in most rational software companies.
Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase
#70I bet it’s next to impossible to prove copyright in this case. You would need to track down every last contributor and create a legally valid authorship evidence that is recognized under German legal doctrine. I would bet that having a email or even full name in a git repository is certainly not enough. This is exactly why for serious open-source projects that big companies depend on, they always creat a legal body,…
Other way around. Just a single contributor who licensed their changes under the GPL can sue. The fact that it's a larger work doesn't matter, because each contributor's rights were infringed, so they have the right to sue.