181–190 of 261 posts
From the article: "developers of Stockfish have terminated their GPL license with ChessBase permanently" https://www.debian.org/social_contract states: "The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons." Thus, is Stockfish no longer DSFG?
Surprisingly, I find myself slightly skeptical of Stockfish's claims, which is... a disquieting feeling. Could someone help me out by finding the flaw in my logic? 1. ChessBase was in violation of the GPL, but then cured the violation by releasing code ( https://stockfishchess.org/blog/2021/statement-on-fat-fritz-... ). But the post claims they refused to release the weights. 2. But the weights are already being rele…
Surprisingly, I find myself slightly skeptical of Stockfish's claims, which is... a disquieting feeling. Could someone help me out by finding the flaw in my logic? 1. ChessBase was in violation of the GPL, but then cured the violation by releasing code ( https://stockfishchess.org/blog/2021/statement-on-fat-fritz-... ). But the post claims they refused to release the weights. 2. But the weights are already being rele…
Given that the chess engine in question is just a tweaked version of Stockfish, this will have a severe impact on their ability to sell their product.
I'm not sure how this would work with derivative code, though. I wonder if they could take a fork of StockFish, which is not StockFish and therefore subject to a different license agreement, and go on their merry way. I don't think that tactic would work (the original author can still claim copyright over the code from the forked repository, I believe) but it might be a possible defence? I think? Not a great one, though.
I don't see any other way ChessBase can get out of this, unless the court decides that the termination clause is unlawful for some reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I don’t think it will be so easily won: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27900683 Note that it’s legal to sell stockfish as long as you’re compliant with GPLv3. ChessBase seems to be compliant. Stockfish argues that ChessBase isn’t compliant because they refuse to release the weights. But this makes no sense; the weights are distributed with every copy of Fat Fritz 2. (Otherwise, how would the program run? It’s n…
This reasoning isn’t correct.
The weights may be as object code not as source. Simply saying the program runs doesn’t mean you’ve distributed the weights anymore than it means your distributed the code.
Last time this came up people pointed at the installation information clause
> “Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
> Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided, in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented (and with an implementation available to the public in source code form), and must require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or copying.
From the article: "developers of Stockfish have terminated their GPL license with ChessBase permanently" https://www.debian.org/social_contract states: "The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons." Thus, is Stockfish no longer DSFG?
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7190/gpl-exce...
Q14 on https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html
https://debian-legal.debian.narkive.com/HciZR18l/nmap-licens...
My impression is that enacting the termination clause of GPL makes Stockfish non-DSFG.
If the Stockfish developers believe a party has broken the terms of a license, they can do any of:
* enact the termination clause, and thus make Stockfish non-DSFG
* raise a court case against the party for breach of license
The Stockfish developers happen to have done both.
> 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?
Does this wording seem extremely weird to anyone else?
According to the GPL:
> 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
Capitalization added by me. Maybe it's a nitpick, but it seems to me that the "termination clause" as people are calling it, isn't something you "invoke" or a sword you use to slay people who violate the GPL. It's an automatic process which you, the copyright holder, don't really control in any way.
IANAL, obviously.
From the article: "developers of Stockfish have terminated their GPL license with ChessBase permanently" https://www.debian.org/social_contract states: "The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons." Thus, is Stockfish no longer DSFG?
Here's some more on this: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7190/gpl-exce... Q14 on https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html https://debian-legal.debian.narkive.com/HciZR18l/nmap-licens... My impression is that enacting the termination clause of GPL makes Stockfish non-DSFG. If the Stockfish developers believe a party has broken the terms of a license, they can do any of: * enact the termination clau…
"Notwithstanding this literal understanding of the license terms, the harshest constructions of the termination provisions of the GPL have not been enforced in practice."
Even if it was tested in one jurisdiction, it might not apply in others.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
GP’s joke, I suspect, was that in practice every bit of money they get from the lawsuit, whether it is labeled “attorney fees” or not, is likely to go towards compensating the legal team, and not to the actual injured party. Which does not contradict your statement. (Part of the point of having a legal fee schedule is, I suppose, to put a damper on the prices of legal help, because, like in medicine, the demand is ot…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Come to think of it - I agree. Anyone whose rights where violated can sue. The challenge of proving authorship and copyright still remains. Honestly not sure what if any available options (git commits, file headers) are really recognized. Basically I can claim that it is I that committed the code under a pseudonym that matches someones real name. Also you can find someone’s namesake etc.
> Basically I can claim that it is I that committed the code under a pseudonym that matches someones real name. Also you can find someone’s namesake etc.
I mean, you can claim obvious falsehoods if you want, but especially doing so in court isn't going to be a good idea.