[HN Gopher] Our lawsuit against ChessBase ___________________________________________________________________ Our lawsuit against ChessBase Author : EvgeniyZh Score : 455 points Date : 2021-07-20 17:09 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (stockfishchess.org) (TXT) w3m dump (stockfishchess.org) | camjohnson26 wrote: | FYI if anybody's looking for a chessbase alternative I use a | combination of SCID vs. PC, Caissabase, and Stockfish to roughly | clone it. I'm sure chessbase has a lot more features but these | alternatives are good enough for an amateur like me. | | https://sourceforge.net/projects/scidvspc/ | http://caissabase.co.uk/ | jeremyjh wrote: | I have desperately been looking for software where I can: | | Build an opening repertoire from PGNs. | | Drill that using spaced repetition (like Chessable) | | Import all my games from Lichess and Chess.com | | Tell me when I deviate from my repertoire in those games. | | Do you know of a software or combo that can achieve that? | chaosmachine wrote: | I really like Listudy for drills, it imports from Lichess | studies (which you can create from PGNs): | | https://listudy.org/ | | Also Opening Tree for bulk analysis: | | https://www.openingtree.com/ | | They're both free and open source. | jeremyjh wrote: | Opening Tree is great and I use it a lot but it does not | persist my games - I have to download them every time I use | it. But I'd love an app with that interface that could | persist the data and cross-check it with my repertoire. I | guess it would not have to be same tool as the repertoire | trainer, it just seems cleaner to have it all in one tool. | But you are right Listudy can help with the spaced | repetition, it just doesn't know anything about my games :) | alisonkisk wrote: | aside from working offline (which is important!), what are the | advantages over an online tool like lichess? | radicalcentrist wrote: | Have you tried ChessX, and if so, how would you say it | compares? | FlyingAvatar wrote: | 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. | ahmedalsudani wrote: | Stockfish still holds the copyright. You're using their code | with their license, and so does everybody you share that code | with. | admax88q wrote: | 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. | joshuaissac wrote: | 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. | qubidt wrote: | That explains it perfectly, thank you. It also raises | interesting questions about the metaphysics of | copyright/intellectual property | rob_c wrote: | Thanks for making me stop and think twice about this. | | Very good point. | mcguire wrote: | 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. | r00fus wrote: | 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. | spywaregorilla wrote: | Demand trial by combat. Opening move, e4. | fourseventy wrote: | c5 | jeremyjh wrote: | Nf3 | camjohnson26 wrote: | g6 | [deleted] | spiantino wrote: | Ke2 | dominicjj wrote: | Your opponent has disconnected [no bong clouds please!] | dane-pgp wrote: | They should have played out the position, it's a known | draw: | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVCst6vyV80 | tequila_shot wrote: | Best by Test - Fischer. | dang wrote: | Past related thread: | | _Open source chess developers warn about a commercial engine | based on Stockfish_ - | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26185139 - Feb 2021 (130 | comments) | | I thought there were others - maybe someone will find one? | truthwhisperer wrote: | If you win it is checkmate right | MattGaiser wrote: | >Due to Chessbase's repeated license violations, leading | developers of Stockfish have terminated their GPL license with | ChessBase permanently. However, ChessBase is ignoring the fact | that they no longer have the right to distribute Stockfish, | modified or unmodified, as part of their products. | | Can they just do that? How can software really be considered free | if the maker can later take away your permission to use it? | httpsterio wrote: | I don't think they can do that for already-released code unless | there's some clause in the licensing. For future code, they can | opt to change the licensing as long as it follows the existing | licensing and their possible code contribution agreements. | heavenlyblue wrote: | Well, but the other party already violated the clause of the | licensing. | metiscus wrote: | The GPL has a termination provision. See this comment: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27897105 | lolbrels wrote: | >right to distribute | progman32 wrote: | See Section 8 of the GPLv3, "termination". | https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html | kyrra wrote: | Reading that, I don't see anything about the copyright holder | being able to manually terminate a license. Rather the | copyright holder can notify a party that is violating other | sections of the GPL3, and then the party can either remedy | those violations or lose their license to use the software. | | Is ChessBase violating the GPL3? | | EDIT: oh, I should read the article. They are saying | ChessBase modified the GPL software then redistributed it | without the original attribution or copyright. | monocasa wrote: | The termination clause has always existed in the GPL, including | the specific ways it can come into effect. It's the teeth of | the GPL. | mehrdada wrote: | The copyright holder can choose to do that only _after_ | violations have occurred (and choose to permanently terminate | the license even after curing the violation). See the verbatim | quote from GPL3 in my other comment | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27897105 | theturtletalks wrote: | GPL and other copy-left licenses work in that way. If StockFish | was MIT licensed before, then ChessBase can use the latest | version with that license. They could even fork the repo at | that point and continue developing. If StockFish was always | GPL, then the license can be terminated. | colechristensen wrote: | 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 enforced by | courts with a blob of text in source code or a check boxes on | websites is still somewhat up in the air (somebody who knows | things feel free to correct my impressions). | bluGill wrote: | Most lawyers who read the GPL are not excited to go to court. | They will advise you are settle without going to court. | Lawyers generally want to feel like they have a chance at | winning a case in court before bothering, it doesn't feel | good to lose - even when you know in advance the case is | lost. | | Don't read that as lawyers never go to court unless they will | win. This is obviously not true: there are many reasons to | take a case to court knowing you will lose it. However if a | case will be lost in court they will avoid court if possible. | mehrdada wrote: | 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 have that permitted you to redistribute the | copyrighted work?) | dominicjj wrote: | Indeed. | | "Your honor, the defendant is distributing my copyrighted | work without a license. Make him stop please." | trhway wrote: | >leading developers of Stockfish have terminated their GPL | license with ChessBase permanently | | Is it possible with GPL? | gaius_baltar wrote: | Fat Fritz 2 is distributed in the Steam Store [1], which is under | US jurisdiction. Should not _this_ be a good use for DMCA take | down? | | [1] https://store.steampowered.com/app/1587750/Fat_Fritz_20_SE/ | mimsee wrote: | If a game gets DMCA'd, can the players who bought it still | continue playing? | Kye wrote: | They'll probably get a refund like with that unlicensed 1984 | ebook incident. | LegitShady wrote: | Maybe but the person they purchased it from wasn't authorized | to distribute it or authorize them playing it. | TheGoodBarn wrote: | Never heard of ChessBase or the game before, but interesting | choice on them to copy the Microsoft Word look and feel for | their game haha. | NavinF wrote: | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbon_(computing) | | Microsoft lets any program use that UI: | https://docs.microsoft.com/en- | us/windows/win32/windowsribbon... | | I've only seen a few programs take up the offer though. | Probably because the style is almost synonymous with MS | Office as you've noted | ngngngng wrote: | > Fat Fritz 2* engine with a massive new neural network | | Ah yes, the $80 Stockfish engine. | thom wrote: | While I think it's a shame that nobody has been able to sue | ChessBase for their software being utter garbage, I will cheer on | this equally worthy endeavour. | orwin wrote: | If company could be sued because their software are garbage, | you won't have a lot of company left. | sildur wrote: | That wouldn't be necessarily bad, though. | xondono wrote: | Except then _the courts_ would have to decide what | constitutes "bad software"... | ngngngng wrote: | All of it? | omega3 wrote: | How is it utter garbage, it has a good library, works | reasonably quickly and does analysis. | snow_mac wrote: | How can we contribute to a Stockfish go fundme? | londons_explore wrote: | > 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... | LocalPCGuy wrote: | 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 | whocares2345 wrote: | I 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 | lights0123 wrote: | 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. | whocares2345 wrote: | 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. | tzs wrote: | > I 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 don't see why they would need every last contributor. They | only would need the contributors of the specific code that they | allege was copied. That Stockfish contains other code by other | contributors that may or may not have been copied would not be | relevant. | subroutine wrote: | Happy National Chess Day... you've been served. | | (n.b. National Chess Day is today) | nhumrich wrote: | in which country? | subroutine wrote: | oops, "International" chess day. | bscphil wrote: | 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... | Rd6n6 wrote: | In 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 everybody skips reading the terms and licenses of things | | In the chess case, the team probably assumed that open source | meant "do whatever you want," and nobody dug any deeper than | that, and now they're getting sued | | Edit: the comments below say that they knew about the license | issue for years | dkural wrote: | This is entirely inaccurate. Chessbase is a company, and has | been well aware of these licensing issues. They've purposefully | renamed and scrubbed OS code to sell it for profit and pass it | on as their own. | matheusmoreira wrote: | > 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. | molticrystal wrote: | Just look in the about/credits link in just about any studio's | game or software product and you will see it is standard | practice to look over and include licenses as needed of all 3rd | party libraries and code bases used in development and credit | them as appropriate. | | While the end user might be sloppy on checking the license | aspect, developers certainly are aware at some stage, | especially commercial developers by the time they create or | modify their about dialog. | ghshephard wrote: | Any company past circa 2002sh or so, and definitely by 2005, is | intimately aware of their intellectual property | responsibilities, and, it's the _opposite_ problem that I 've | run into - in which tons of strawmen are thrown up as to the | danger of infecting products with open source licenses makes it | dangerous to touch the code. One of the reasons why BSD | licenses are so attractive to corporations, is that they run | the lowest risk. GPLv3 is obviously a non-starter for most | companies, with GPLv2 falling somewhere in the middle. | mehrdada wrote: | > 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. | setpatchaddress wrote: | 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. | ghshephard wrote: | 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) | apetresc wrote: | This is a possibility in general, but not here. Chessbase has a | long history with this sort of thing, and they've been called | out repeatedly. They've even settled before, if I recall | correctly. | [deleted] | 29athrowaway wrote: | They may be able to use a MuZero derivative now. | bluesign wrote: | 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. Obviously, we condemn the approach taken." | subroutine wrote: | 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? | komon wrote: | 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. | DannyBee wrote: | 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." | subroutine wrote: | Sorry, but could you clarify whether the NN weights | constitute a covered work? If so, why? If not, what sort of | output would constitute a covered work? | apetresc wrote: | 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? | qwertox wrote: | 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 | MikeDelta wrote: | Sounds like a business model. | reedciccio wrote: | IIRC the GPL has been tested in German courts before. Would | this be any different from other GPL violation in court like | this one https://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink- | judgement_fra...? | dsiegel2275 wrote: | I agree. Likely a quick checkmate in court. | wiz21c wrote: | Stockfish has an opportunity to make money here. No? | [deleted] | elmo2you wrote: | 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 illegally, the company and its | executives might have another problem. I don't know the | specifics of German law, but I believe that distributing | software (or any product) illegally is actually a criminal | offense (no longer a civil dispute). That could | (theoretically/eventually) lead to criminal prosecution and | who knows .. jail time? | adrianba wrote: | I don't know about German law specifically, but damages | can be shown in a variety of ways. In the US, courts have | recognized publishers of open-source software as | receiving value from having made source code available at | no charge, such as reputational gain or adoption leading | to future sales of related products or services. | chippiewill wrote: | Additionally the possibility to relicense the software to | the offender under commercial terms and gain direct | monetary value. | | Presumably it's important to establish damages (at least | in a US jurisdiction) because otherwise they wouldn't | have standing to bring a lawsuit. | jeremyjh wrote: | Step 1. Hire an expensive attorney. Step 2. Sue to | recover attorney fees. | germanier wrote: | 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 | mananaysiempre wrote: | 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 otherwise | extremely inelastic: when you need it, you _really_ need | it. That does not appear to work. I wonder if there is an | approach that would work.) | mmcdermott wrote: | The short answer would be to make legal representation | less valuable. Ensure that all cases (civil, criminal or | otherwise) are tried and concluded quickly including | appeals and streamline the law so that there is a lot | less maneuverability. Lawyers wouldn't vanish (having | someone knowledgeable and with proper negotiating | distance will always be valuable), but they would lose a | lot of leverage. | | Of course, if there's one thing that lawyers are less | likely to do than cap the earnings of their profession, | it's to devalue it entirely. | | You could also increase supply by reducing the level of | qualification needed to become a lawyer. Increased | competition would drive prices down. That too is highly | unlikely. | groby_b wrote: | The German legal system does put somewhat of a damper on | "every bit of money". First, it can only be charged as | attorney fees, and if it exceeds the legal schedule, it | needs to be very clearly called out as an attorney fee | agreement. So "or not" is off the table. | | Secondly, there is a morality clause with regards to | attorney fees, so usurious rates like some US attorneys | charge are harder to achieve. | | This doesn't mean German attorneys are cheap. It's just | not quite as out of control as the US legal system. | (Though attorney's professional bodies are obviously | lobbying to make it easier to charge more) | | The legal fee schedule _does_ put a damper on attorney | work, and more importantly, makes it somewhat easier to | predict costs should you need an attorney. If it 's | enough of a damper is open to interpretation. I | alexfromapex wrote: | 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. | indymike wrote: | Copyright infringement can have large statutory damages | that have nothing to do with the actual financial damage | from the infringement. | yladiz wrote: | Case in point, the awards given against people who pirate | something like a movie which are completely detached from | the actual damage caused by the piracy. | rhizome wrote: | Yeah, that's what "statutory damages" means. In the US, | _if you have registered your copyright_ (distinct from | the automatic copyright that attaches at creation), you | are entitled to damages up to $150,000 _per | infringement_. If 1,000 people can be proven to have | downloaded that movie from you, that would be an | unwelcome bill indeed. If 10,000, well then now you 're | starting to talk about real money. | DaiPlusPlus wrote: | "Deterrent value", apparently. | occamrazor wrote: | Statutory damages are virtually non-existent in Europe. | Jolter wrote: | In Germany? Are you sure about that? | PennRobotics wrote: | It seems there has already been one similar case in | Germany where an open source copyright violation occurred | but no damages could be awarded. Specifically, a higher | court overturned the damages permitted by a lower court. | | (in German) https://www.cmshs-bloggt.de/gewerblicher- | rechtsschutz/urhebe... | dheera wrote: | 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 | Gaelan wrote: | Defendant, for the record, but your term is way better. | alisonkisk wrote: | Plaintiff and Defendant. | | Complainant and Respondent | alisonkisk wrote: | > leading developers of Stockfish have terminated their GPL | license with ChessBase permanently. | | How practical is this, under GPL? | LegitShady wrote: | Someone else copied GPL's termination clause above...it's | practical. | anonymousiam wrote: | Hmmm. GPL cases in German courts don't always produce the | expected outcome. | | https://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-developer-abandons-vmwar... | ahmedalsudani wrote: | Nothing always produces the expected outcome :) | | Lower courts are usually not where you get good decisions in | novel cases like GPL enforcement. | Tomte wrote: | If the court tells you to prove that you're holding copyright, | and you just say "go on GitHub and see for yourself" (yes, | really!) and the court even gives you another chance with | another deadline and you don't reply, then yes, I fully expect | the court to say "if you don't want to show central | prerequisites of the case (standing), then you do you." | | Former comment at the time: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12254911 | nichch wrote: | > 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? | mehrdada wrote: | 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 copyright holder is reinstated (a) | provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly | and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if | the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by | some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation. | | Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is | reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of | the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time | you have received notice of violation of this License (for any | work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation | prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice. | | Termination of your rights under this section does not | terminate the licenses of parties who have received copies or | rights from you under this License. If your rights have been | terminated and not permanently reinstated, you do not qualify | to receive new licenses for the same material under section 10. | kragen wrote: | GPLv2 has the termination provision but doesn't have the | automatic-reinstatement provisions. | [deleted] | porphyra wrote: | GPL allows you to use and distribute open-source code as long | as you follow certain conditions like open sourcing derivatives | under the GPL. | | Since Chessbase has not done that, Stockfish devs are no longer | allowing Chessbase to use their code. | InvaderFizz wrote: | 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. | dmurray wrote: | 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. | pessimizer wrote: | > 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. | Kye wrote: | Document | gpm wrote: | I'm not sure if it's settled law on whether or not you need | to license to use code... | thomasahle wrote: | 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? | gpm wrote: | It's not settled law, but IMO probably not, I don't | believe it's ever been tested in court. | | Windows comes with a click-wrap _contract_ that you agree | to when you install it, that restricts certain things you | could usually do. So it 's a bit of a bad example... but | I'll use it anyways. | | What does (generally, not legal advice, not a lawyer) | need a license is making a copy of the software, i.e. | installing windows onto your computer actually makes a | copy, or making a copy of the installer for your friend - | makes a copy. Just booting up the machine that already | has windows installed on, that's (probably) not copyright | infringement even if you don't have a valid license. It | might be breach of contract depending on what contracts | you have agreed to though! Physically giving your friend | the computer with windows already installed on it, is | similarly not copyright infringement. Cloning the hard- | drive so you now have two hard-drives with windows | installed, _that 's_ copyright infringement. | dboreham wrote: | 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 it and won. | gpm wrote: | 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... | TeMPOraL wrote: | 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. | dmurray wrote: | 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. | LocalPCGuy wrote: | 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). | gpm wrote: | Certainly, I'm just responding to "So, not like a book, | where if you have the physical copy you can generally | read it" | | As far as I know it _is_ like a book, if you have a copy | you can read (execute) it, you just can 't make new | copies for your customers. | | Whether or not that helps ChessBase... well... ya... | kragen wrote: | Licenses, in general, promises rather than agreements: | | https://www.britannica.com/topic/license | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License | | https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/License | | 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. | sneak wrote: | 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. | SahAssar wrote: | 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 SQLite in a | jurisdiction that does not recognize the public domain" and | "You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not | recognize the right of authors to dedicate their work to | the public domain". | | Also, when it comes to code dedicated to public domain it | is good to consider what wikipedia says about implied | warranty: "The licensing process also allows authors, | particularly software authors, the opportunity to | explicitly deny any implied warranty that might give | someone a basis for legal action against them." It is | always good to include a clause saying that there is no | warranty, implied or otherwise (unless of course you | provide a warranty, which you _probably_ should not do | without restrictions on OSS code). | Hello71 wrote: | > the CC0 Public Domain Dedication is GPL-compatible and | acceptable for software. | SahAssar wrote: | 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. | hvdijk wrote: | 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. | sneak wrote: | I don't believe that this is accurate. | TeMPOraL wrote: | 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. | Gaelan wrote: | It depends on jurisdiction. Some places (I think the US | is one of these) do allow you to put works in the public | domain, and CC0 does that where possible. The "as if" | license is a fallback. | Xylakant wrote: | It's simplified, but more or less accurate. CC0 is an | attempt at making a public domain deed possible for | jurisdictions that do not know public domain deeds like | the US does. German Urheberrecht is not entirely like US | copyright, some rights of the author are impossible to | waive. So CC0 has a fallback for those jurisdictions, it | grants a license to the fullest extend possible under the | law. https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/le | galcode | [deleted] | Y_Y wrote: | 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. | Scarblac wrote: | It doesn't stop another person redistributing -- but then | Chessbase still has no license for the copy they received. It | doesn't help them. | FartyMcFarter wrote: | > I don't think that prevents somebody sympathetic (if such a | person exists) from re-distributing it to Chessbase though. | | Would this be legal? | gnud wrote: | 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. | greenshackle2 wrote: | No. Stockfish owns the copyright to their code. You can't | copy stockfish code without a license from stockfish. | There's no provision in the GPL for some third party to re- | grant a GPL license to someone else after their license was | terminated. | mdoms wrote: | It means they are in further violation of a license they | already disregarded. | vmception wrote: | 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 | jonnycomputer wrote: | How often does this happen, and closed source actually gets away | with it? | rocketcity wrote: | If you are looking for more details on this Chris Callahan of | Lichess.org provided some commentary on this issue in Episode 221 | of the Perpetual Chess Podcast | (https://www.perpetualchesspod.com/new-blog/2021/4/6/episode-...) | SloopJon wrote: | The current title is "Our lawsuit against ChessBase - Stockfish - | open-source Chess Engine", which I found confusing. Is Stockfish | being sued? Does it belong to ChessBase? I suggest sticking with | the simpler title from the blog, "Our lawsuit against ChessBase". | dang wrote: | Fixed now. | parsecs wrote: | Looks like OP didn't clean up the url while submitting, it | defaulted to page title. | shadeslayer_ wrote: | Or maybe they didn't editorialize it because HN frowns upon | that sort of thing. | SloopJon wrote: | You're right. I didn't see that text anywhere on the page, | but it indeed comes from the title element. It doesn't fit in | the tab, but I see it now in the tooltip when I hover over | the tab in Firefox. | variaga wrote: | I'd suggest: "Our (Stockfish) lawsuit against Chessbase" | nefitty wrote: | Stockfish's lawsuit against Chessbase ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-07-20 23:00 UTC)