[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)