Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Our lawsuit against ChessBase

stockfishchess.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 261 posts

Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

#91

Post by komon »

subroutine wrote: post #85
bluesign wrote: post #51

From older blog post: "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. Obv…

Say I use GNU licensed software to train a neural net, using data I collected and labeled. I am completely transparent about the code I used, and cite/share any ad hoc code modifications... Should I be legally compelled to share the net weights of my trained NN?

Programs compiled with GCC are not GPL by extension. Arguably the net weights are a kind of program themselves.

If you have a non-GPL license to use and redistribute the data you use to train the neural net, I would imagine not.

Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

#93

Post by DannyBee »

subroutine wrote: post #85
bluesign wrote: post #51

From older blog post: "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. Obv…

Say I use GNU licensed software to train a neural net, using data I collected and labeled. I am completely transparent about the code I used, and cite/share any ad hoc code modifications... Should I be legally compelled to share the net weights of my trained NN?

There are long running disagreements about what this means under GPLv2 in various cases.

Under GPLv3, the answer is explicitly clear: "The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work."

Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

#94

Post by xondono »

sildur wrote: post #34
orwin wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If company could be sued because their software are garbage, you won't have a lot of company left.

That wouldn't be necessarily bad, though.

Except then the courts would have to decide what constitutes “bad software”…

Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

#95

Post by vmception »

nichch wrote: post #5

> 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?

So everyone can use it but can be individually revoked?

Seems inefficient, but I understand if thats their only remedy, as provided by their own license

Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

#96

Post by qubidt »

joshuaissac wrote: post #65
admax88q wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That explains it perfectly, thank you. It also raises interesting questions about the metaphysics of copyright/intellectual property

Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

#97

Post by germanier »

jeremyjh wrote: post #87
elmo2you wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm definitely not a lawyer/expert on this, even less about Germany specifically, but isn't actual financial damage required for financial compensation? While Stockfish might have suffered damage from ChessBase's behavior, if it can't be clearly specified as monetary damage, I don't really see how they could make money from this. On the other hand, if ChessBase is found (and ruled) to have distributed software illega…

Step 1. Hire an expensive attorney. Step 2. Sue to recover attorney fees.

In German court proceedings you can only recover attorney fees up to the (pretty low) legal fee schedule (RVG). Anything above that you will have to pay yourselves

Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

#98

Post by hvdijk »

sneak wrote: post #31
InvaderFizz wrote: post #10

Earlier 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.

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.

CC0 and WTFPL are also copyright licenses. Works available under these licenses can be used with very few restrictions (basically, as few as permitted by law), but the works are still copyrighted.

Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

#99

Post by [deleted] »

sneak wrote: post #31
InvaderFizz wrote: post #10

Earlier 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.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

#100

Post by sneak »

hvdijk wrote: post #98
sneak wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

CC0 and WTFPL are also copyright licenses. Works available under these licenses can be used with very few restrictions (basically, as few as permitted by law), but the works are still copyrighted.

I don't believe that this is accurate.
Post reply on HN