Stockfish clones in the AppStore: it's becoming a plague...

[hgm]

Then Stockfish is in clear violation of the App Store agreement, and if other derived work of Stockfish is removed from the App Store it would be consistent for Apple to also remove Stockfish until Tord releases it under another licence.


// Christophe

No, you're confused, Christophe. Stockfish is released in the App Store under the App Store's agreement. But it's source code, that can be download on SF's website, is released under GPL agreement.

This is also a violation of the App Store agreement.


// Christophe

I must agree with Christophe here. Distributing an application in source is clearly a violation of the App Store rules (if they were quoted correctly here). By submitting Stockfish to the App Store, Tord has implicitly agreed to not do that. If he continues to distribute the source (under GPL or whatever), he is clearly in violation of his agreement with Apple, and Apple coulde take legal action against him. Such action could stay limited to kicking Stockfish out of the App Store, (i.e. voiding the agreement based on non-compliance by Tord), but in theory they could set their aim higher, and force Tord to honour the agreement by stopping the distribution of source, or sue for damages.

I am pretty sure this would apply to the exact source of the app as it is in the App Store. I am not sure what the legal status would be for releasing source code of something that does not compile exactly to the app, but does share code with it. The agreement is not that you transfer copyright of code. So my guess is that offering code for Stockfish as a general UCI engine would not count as distribution of the app. But for something including the GUI that could run on an iPhone, I think you are already getting in the danger zone. Even if it would be an improved 'Stockfish II' app for iPhone that you do not distribute through the app store.

[michiguel]

Then Stockfish is in clear violation of the App Store agreement, and if other derived work of Stockfish is removed from the App Store it would be consistent for Apple to also remove Stockfish until Tord releases it under another licence.


// Christophe

No, you're confused, Christophe. Stockfish is released in the App Store under the App Store's agreement. But it's source code, that can be download on SF's website, is released under GPL agreement.

This is also a violation of the App Store agreement.


// Christophe

I must agree with Christophe here. Distributing an application in source is clearly a violation of the App Store rules (if they were quoted correctly here). By submitting Stockfish to the App Store, Tord has implicitly agreed to not do that. If he continues to distribute the source (under GPL or whatever), he is clearly in violation of his agreement with Apple, and Apple coulde take legal action against him. Such action could stay limited to kicking Stockfish out of the App Store, (i.e. voiding the agreement based on non-compliance by Tord), but in theory they could set their aim higher, and force Tord to honour the agreement by stopping the distribution of source, or sue for damages.

I am pretty sure this would apply to the exact source of the app as it is in the App Store. I am not sure what the legal status would be for releasing source code of something that does not compile exactly to the app, but does share code with it. The agreement is not that you transfer copyright of code. So my guess is that offering code for Stockfish as a general UCI engine would not count as distribution of the app. But for something including the GUI that could run on an iPhone, I think you are already getting in the danger zone. Even if it would be an improved 'Stockfish II' app for iPhone that you do not distribute through the app store.

Are we sure there is no implicit or explicit copyright assignment/transfer here with Apple? at least a partial one? this looks exactly as when you publish a paper in Journal (except Open Access). The manuscript is yours until it gets published, then it belongs to the publisher. You cannot distribute copies of it anymore w/o permission.

If the author retains copyright, I cannot see how it can be stopped to do whatever he/she wants with the code.

Miguel

[Michel]

Distributing an application in source is clearly a violation of the App Store rules

How ridiculous.

A company imposing such rules should be avoided like the plague.

[Eelco de Groot]

Distributing an application in source is clearly a violation of the App Store rules

How ridiculous.

A company imposing such rules should be avoided like the plague.

I am sure that Tord would never consciously have agreed to any terms that would mean giving up his copyright of Stockfish to the App. store. I am sure Tord has read the contract before applying Stockfish to the store. How could Apple possibly require that a GPL application be closed source only. Did they not read a single letter in Tord's application then? If this app so clearly violates their own rules, it would seem Apple themselves are in breach of their own contract having accepted Tord's GPL terms when he applied to the store and they have no legal leg to stand on if they ever try to enforce closing the source, or withdrawing the GPL or any transference of copyright. In my lay opinion that is. It would be sad however if Tord would have to withdraw Stockfish when his sole purpose was to provide a service to the whole chessloving community. He does not earn a single penny from Glaurung/Stockfish and put in an enormous programming effort, together with the other members of the Stockfish team. If this is incompatible with Apple's profit maximizing strategies, it is a real shame.

Eelco

[tiger]

Distributing an application in source is clearly a violation of the App Store rules

How ridiculous.

A company imposing such rules should be avoided like the plague.

This very rule is the one that would prevent people to take an open source program (GPL or not) and make money from it when the author's original intent was that the app is provided free of charge.

Feel free to avoid this company like the plague, but feel also free to think twice when you interpret their intentions.


// Christophe

[hgm]

If the author retains copyright, I cannot see how it can be stopped to do whatever he/she wants with the code.

By mutual agreement you can be stopped or forced to do almost anything (unless it would violate the law; in that case the agreement would be void). If I own a copyright or a patent, I could grant someone an exclusive license for the use of it. For which he would obviously have to pay a lot more than for a non-exclusive license. Granting him this license (perhaps for a limited time) would not in anyway jeopardize my ownership of the material. But I still would be in severe breach of contract when I would now do 'whatever I want' with the material (like granting a license to someone else).

[tiger]

Distributing an application in source is clearly a violation of the App Store rules

How ridiculous.

A company imposing such rules should be avoided like the plague.

I am sure that Tord would never consciously have agreed to any terms that would mean giving up his copyright of Stockfish to the App. store. I am sure Tord has read the contract before applying Stockfish to the store. How could Apple possibly require that a GPL application be closed source only. Did they not read a single letter in Tord's application then? If this app so clearly violates their own rules, it would seem Apple themselves are in breach of their own contract having accepted Tord's GPL terms when he applied to the store and they have no legal leg to stand on if they ever try to enforce closing the source, or withdrawing the GPL or any transference of copyright. In my lay opinion that is. It would be sad however if Tord would have to withdraw Stockfish when his sole purpose was to provide a service to the whole chessloving community. He does not earn a single penny from Glaurung/Stockfish and put in an enormous programming effort, together with the other members of the Stockfish team. If this is incompatible with Apple's profit maximizing strategies, it is a real shame.

Eelco

You should be happy that Apple relaxed their own rule and let Stockfish be published.

These are THEIR rules. They are quite free to enforce them or not because they are not legally bound to enforce them.

In my experience, they start enforcing them when a clear abuse is noticed.

So I guess Stockfish is safe and it would indeed be possible to take action against the clones. This is in contradiction with what I thought initially, but since I have learnt that the GPL is not compatible with the App Store I believe that it is possible to do something.


// Christophe

[Eelco de Groot]

You should be happy that Apple relaxed their own rule and let Stockfish be published.

These are THEIR rules. They are quite free to enforce them or not because they are not legally bound to enforce them.

In my experience, they start enforcing them when a clear abuse is noticed.

So I guess Stockfish is safe and it would indeed be possible to take action against the clones. This is in contradiction with what I thought initially, but since I have learnt that the GPL is not compatible with the App Store I believe that it is possible to do something.


// Christophe

Yes, that is more or less what I thought that had happened; because Tord mentioned that Stockfish first had to go through some review and that he had to wait whether it would be accepted by the store. So from that at least it seemed that both parties looked at any special implications of having a GPL program accepted and if that would mean that the rules would have to be adapted, both Tord and Apple had looked at the matter and agreed. One would hope they would also have had the foresight of looking at possible cloning of the Stockfish sources.

Other applicants might possibly complain then, if they felt that an 'unfair' exception had been made from the rules, or they might point to incompatibility to the store regulations with the GPL. I do not expect that the cloners would take it up with a judge, but if they did I maybe naively would expect the judge to look if anything a) illegal or b) injust would have taken place. Of course there may be jurisprudence, or existing regulations for webstores maybe, that could complicate a ruling. But maybe naively, I would hope that the judge then would weigh heavily that it is not just in the interest of GPL developers but important for all real developers that something can be done against outright cloning, breach of GPL even and that these clone developers would not be able to simply say they are within the boundaries of the GPL entitled to the same treatment as the original author for instance. That is what you would hope is also taken into consideration by Apple themselves. But in a perfect world there would never be need of any judge or referee.

(Also this is about a store, the official Apple store, when it would simply be about GPL clones on the Internet in general, people behave differently and they would be a bit more wary about what they are buying I think. And the Internet is much harder to police than a store, even a virtual store.)

Sorry for my longwinded post Christophe

Regards, Eelco

[tiger]

You should be happy that Apple relaxed their own rule and let Stockfish be published.

These are THEIR rules. They are quite free to enforce them or not because they are not legally bound to enforce them.

In my experience, they start enforcing them when a clear abuse is noticed.

So I guess Stockfish is safe and it would indeed be possible to take action against the clones. This is in contradiction with what I thought initially, but since I have learnt that the GPL is not compatible with the App Store I believe that it is possible to do something.


// Christophe

Yes, that is more or less what I thought that had happened; because Tord mentioned that Stockfish first had to go through some review and that he had to wait whether it would be accepted by the store. So from that at least it seemed that both parties looked at any special implications of having a GPL program accepted and if that would mean that the rules would have to be adapted, both Tord and Apple had looked at the matter and agreed. One would hope they would also have had the foresight of looking at possible cloning of the Stockfish sources.

I don't think there has been anything special about Stockfish.

Every program published on the App Store has to pass thru a lengthy and almost opaque review process.

Chess Tiger has waited only one week. I mean from the time I have send the binary and all the marketing material to the time the app has been available for purchase on the App Store, one week has elapsed.

The two updates I have posted since have taken between 2.5 and 5 days to be accepted.

I have heard that in the past some applications took several weeks or even months to be approved, for no special reason. I guess Apple is totally overwhelmed by the amount of work the review process represents and they have only recently assigned enough people to the task.

I think they mostly look for bugs in the application and malevolent behaviour. In the case of GPL programs, it seems that they let them be as long as no complaint is received. However I do not know if they would react on a complaint, how long it would take or what they would do.

Other applicants might possibly complain then, if they felt that an 'unfair' exception had been made from the rules, or they might point to incompatibility to the store regulations with the GPL. I do not expect that the cloners would take it up with a judge, but if they did I maybe naively would expect the judge to look if anything a) illegal or b) injust would have taken place. Of course there may be jurisprudence, or existing regulations for webstores maybe, that could complicate a ruling. But maybe naively, I would hope that the judge then would weigh heavily that it is not just in the interest of GPL developers but important for all real developers that something can be done against outright cloning, breach of GPL even and that these clone developers would not be able to simply say they are within the boundaries of the GPL entitled to the same treatment as the original author for instance. That is what you would hope is also taken into consideration by Apple themselves. But in a perfect world there would never be need of any judge or referee.

(Also this is about a store, the official Apple store, when it would simply be about GPL clones on the Internet in general, people behave differently and they would be a bit more wary about what they are buying I think. And the Internet is much harder to police than a store, even a virtual store.)

Sorry for my longwinded post Christophe

Regards, Eelco

I can answer in a few words.

Having a judge look at the issue is science fiction.

Apple rules the store.



// Christophe

[JuLieN]

New UNBELIEVABLY cheeky cloner in the AppStore: Nguyen Thi Yen, publishing "Chess-HD" today...

Here's a screen of "his" program:

iTunes link: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/chess-hd ... 76474?mt=8

Now here's one of Tom Kerrigan's "tChess Pro" program:

iTunes link: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/t-chess- ... 45501?mt=8

As you can see, there are some "slight" similarities... The guy actually published Tom's screenshots as his own. As I didn't want to pay $2.99 to buy this clone or whatever it is, I have no idea if this is tChess. But Tom, whom I contacted, thinks it might be Stockfish, as it weights 7.1mb just like SF, when tChessPro weights 1.6mb. He'll contact Apple.

Incredible, shameless scam.