> leading developers of Stockfish have terminated their GPL license with ChessBase permanently.
Can the developers do this? I was under the impression that when code is published on the web GPL licensed, the developers cannot retroactively withdraw the license...
Or perhaps they are withdrawing the license for all new code... To publish some code as "GPL, available for all except this person"? Is that allowed? Even if that were allowed, someone else could use their rights under the GPL to redistribute it to that person...
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.
The copy would be a derivative of Stockfish, and (IIUC) (NOTALAWYER) I believe by terminating ChessBase's use of the license directly they would also prevent ChessBase from using a derivative product. It shouldn't be any harder to enforce than any other copyright violation (and I'd bet the court would not be amused by ChessBase trying to do an end-run around their license issues by introducing a third party.
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.
Even then, IIRC CC0 is not that easy to apply to code (even CC do not recommend it for that: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm... ), WTFPL is entirely untested (even more so than GPL/MIT which are also not entirely tested in courts) and some regions do not recognize public domain. For example sqlite sells a license for what is public domain code partially for the reason of "You are using SQ…
> the CC0 Public Domain Dedication is GPL-compatible and acceptable for software.
> GPLv3 is obviously a non-starter for most companies "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.
I think the parent is referring to the code they ship as part of their own products, which for most companies is definitely not GPL3 if they can avoid it.
Thanks for clarifying that. I'm also definitely referring to the software that companies ship that is not meant to be open source. GPLv2 is mostly safe as long as you don't link to it (Unless its LGPL and you dynamically link).
Try and find a single major corporation in the world that is willing to bind it's proprietary intellectual property to GPLv3. It's a tribute, honestly, to that license that most companies realize that they have to go all-in on open-source (at which point GPLv3 is fine)
> 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?
From GNU GPL v3: 8. Termination. You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11). However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular…
GPLv2 has the termination provision but doesn't have the automatic-reinstatement provisions.
I'm not sure if it's settled law on whether or not you need to license to use code...
I don't think it quite works that way: the license is really just an agreement between the user and the rights holder that they will not sue for infringement. So use without license really means "you may expect to be sued". The outcome of that suit would determine whether or not you "need to license to use code". I'm guessing there have been many cases where the copyright owners for some code sued someone for using i…
Licenses, in general, promises rather than agreements:
Using software is not one of the enumerated rights reserved to a copyright owner. Copying and distributing it are. So it's unclear whether a copyright owner has standing to sue you for using their software without a license. In the US there is conflicting caselaw, hinging on the legal status of the temporary copy made in the computer's RAM when a program is launched.
I don't think it quite works that way: the license is really just an agreement between the user and the rights holder that they will not sue for infringement. So use without license really means "you may expect to be sued". The outcome of that suit would determine whether or not you "need to license to use code". I'm guessing there have been many cases where the copyright owners for some code sued someone for using i…
For distributing it, making copies of it, and violating contacts, definitely. For using a program already on a computer with no click through contract that you agree to to run it (or other contractual obligation), I'm not aware of any cases. That they can sue is a non statement, you can sue for anything, but I don't believe it is obviously (or even likely) copyright infringement...
Even if you could execute the code you somehow obtained, but for which you've somehow lost the license, for ChessBase it becomes worthless, as they can no longer distribute - whether sell or give away - anything building up on it.
I don't think it quite works that way: the license is really just an agreement between the user and the rights holder that they will not sue for infringement. So use without license really means "you may expect to be sued". The outcome of that suit would determine whether or not you "need to license to use code". I'm guessing there have been many cases where the copyright owners for some code sued someone for using i…
For distributing it, making copies of it, and violating contacts, definitely. For using a program already on a computer with no click through contract that you agree to to run it (or other contractual obligation), I'm not aware of any cases. That they can sue is a non statement, you can sue for anything, but I don't believe it is obviously (or even likely) copyright infringement...
To be clear, it would be ChessBase that would be sued, not individual users. And ChessBase would be the one allegedly in violation of "distributing it, making copies of it, and violating contracts". Since their license to use Stockfish seems to be revoked, it seems like it would fall under copyright infringement at that point (although up to the courts to decide, of course).
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...
Isn't it normally the case that you need a license to use software products made by other people?
Like, if I ran Windows on a server and Microsoft revoked my license. Surely that's tested in a court at some point?
For distributing it, making copies of it, and violating contacts, definitely. For using a program already on a computer with no click through contract that you agree to to run it (or other contractual obligation), I'm not aware of any cases. That they can sue is a non statement, you can sue for anything, but I don't believe it is obviously (or even likely) copyright infringement...
Even if you could execute the code you somehow obtained, but for which you've somehow lost the license, for ChessBase it becomes worthless, as they can no longer distribute - whether sell or give away - anything building up on it.
They do also have a cloud offering - you pay them to evaluate a chess position on their computer - so I could see the license to use the code being important, though it's separate to their flagship offering of shrinkwrap software.