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

121–130 of 261 posts

Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

#121

Post by SahAssar »

Hello71 wrote: post #113
SahAssar wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The link I provided from the authors of the license also says "We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software."

They say it's compatible, but not recommended.

Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

#122

Post by qwertox »

apetresc wrote: post #2

If this goes to trial, I think this might be the cleanest and most straightforward test of the GPL in court we've had up to this point?

This will be easily won against ChessBase. They F'd up.

German court does care way too much for the "Urheberrecht" -- copyright -- and this is clearly a violation of it.

If they would let this go through, nobody would take the German court serious again, and there is too much interest in not letting that happen.

In any case, they also sell a music software called "Ludwig 3" [1]. I now wouldn't be surprised if it also makes improper use of OSS libraries.

[1] http://www.komponieren.de/arrangieren.html

Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

#123

Post by TeMPOraL »

sneak wrote: post #100
hvdijk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Quoting from https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc..., emphasis mine:

"Unlike the Public Domain Mark, CC0 should not be used to mark works already free of known copyright and database restrictions and in the public domain throughout the world. However, it can be used to waive copyright and database rights to the extent you may have these rights in your work under the laws of at least one jurisdiction, even if your work is free of restrictions in others. Doing so clarifies the status of your work unambiguously worldwide and facilitates reuse."

As I understand it, you can't just waive copyright on your own work - copyright is something you get automatically in most jurisdictions on the planet. Licenses like CC0 and WTFPL are operating within the copyright regime - they use the laws to make your work behave as if it was not subject to copyright - but they can't actually make your work not copyrighted.

It's like a difference between simulation and reality. CC0, WTFPL, etc. are simulating a copyright-free reality on top of the copyright system. No matter how close to perfect they get, it's still a simulation, and copyright is the underlying runtime.

Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

#124

Post by bscphil »

I've read through this thread and I haven't seen a simple summary of the situation as it stands with respect to copying and the GPL violation. Here's what I believe to have happened:

1. ChessBase began selling the Fat Fritz 2 chess engine.

2. It came to the attention of Stockfish developers that FF2 is a Stockfish derivative "with a few lines of code modification". [1]

3. Stockfish notified ChessBase of the violation and demanded that they comply with the terms of the GPL. ChessBase responded by releasing the source code of Fat Fritz 2, but not the neural net weights created for use and distributed with FF2. [1]

4. Key Stockfish developers regard the distribution of FF2 without the neural net weights used in creating the work to be a violation of their rights under the GPL. ChessBase (apparently) disagree - I don't see a press release on their website to confirm their take on this.

This question appears to hinge on whether the weights constitute part of a derived work under the GPL. This may depend on whether the weights are "output" from running a covered program. Under the GPL 3, the output of a program is only covered only if, given its content, it constitutes a covered work (i.e. a part of a GPL 3 covered program).

The exact technical details still aren't clear to me. If ChessBase is willing to release any software that actually ships with FF2 (e.g. the NNUE file) under the GPL, I think that would cure their violation even if they don't release the code used to produce the NNUE file. It's not clear to me whether or not they have been willing to do this (I'm not totally sure what's meant by "weights").

5. Regardless of this, Stockfish developers likely have the right to invoke the nuclear option (license termination). Even though ChessBase have ceased their license violations, a GPL 3 copyright holder may terminate your license under 2 conditions:

* If you have been notified of a GPL 3 license violation by the same copyright holder (for any work) before, and the copyright holder notifies you of the violation within 60 days after you cease to violate the terms of the license.

* If you do not cure your violation of the GPL within 30 days of notification, the copyright owner may terminate your license regardless of whether you have previously been notified.

6. There are two ways Stockfish potentially wins this lawsuit. Either

(1) they argue that violation of the GPL license is ongoing, and thus ChessBase have not cured their violation of the license within 30 days and therefore they are within their rights to terminate. This would hinge on the licensing status of the neural net weights, as discussed above.

(2) They argue that at least one Stockfish copyright holder involved in the lawsuit has notified ChessBase of a violation of the GPL 3 before, and thus has the unconditional right to terminate the license because ChessBase was notified within 60 days. This seems plausible enough given ChessBases's previous use of their code [2] but I haven't found any statement that outright says that they have previously notified ChessBase of a violation of their GPL 3 licensed work.

[1] https://stockfishchess.org/blog/2021/statement-on-fat-fritz-...

[2] https://lichess.org/blog/YCvy7xMAACIA8007/fat-fritz-2-is-a-r...

Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

#125

Post by pessimizer »

dmurray wrote: post #30
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.

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.

> So, not like a book, where if you have the physical copy you can generally read it

So like an ebook then. We don't have a good distinction in English between a) medium-length arrangement of words and punctuation and b) book.

Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

#126

Post by LocalPCGuy »

londons_explore wrote: post #111

> 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 i…

See the termination clause. V3 provides some ways to get a terminated license reinstated, v2 is a bit different I think. This pull quote is from 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).

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html#section8

Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

#127

Post by Jolter »

indymike wrote: post #73
alexfromapex wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It will be interesting, depends where jurisdiction falls and how that jurisdiction interprets any alleged damages since GPL content is normally released free of charge.

Copyright infringement can have large statutory damages that have nothing to do with the actual financial damage from the infringement.

In Germany? Are you sure about that?

Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

#128

Post by Gaelan »

dheera wrote: post #104
dsiegel2275 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Likely a quick checkmate in court.

Hard to say, very often the sour-cream-and-onion-tiff* cannot afford the same quality of lawyers that the plain-tiff can. * I don't know what the opposite of a plain-tiff is

Defendant, for the record, but your term is way better.

Re: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

#130

Post by alisonkisk »

dheera wrote: post #104
dsiegel2275 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Likely a quick checkmate in court.

Hard to say, very often the sour-cream-and-onion-tiff* cannot afford the same quality of lawyers that the plain-tiff can. * I don't know what the opposite of a plain-tiff is

Plaintiff and Defendant.

Complainant and Respondent

Post reply on HN