hgm wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:52 pmCustomers can ask all they want, and ChessBase can happily ignore their requests. Only the copyright holder has any legal standing in this.
Could you please stop saying obviously wrong things and never provide any basis to support these claims? https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/c ... dex_en.htm
"if goods you bought turn out to be faulty or do not look or work as advertised" so anyone who thought of buying an original engine can ask for a refund.
the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
the freedom to change the software to suit your needs,
the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and
the freedom to share the changes you make. "
It is your right, as a user, to be able to modify a GPL software and not providing the sources violates one of the bases of the license.
dkappe wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:49 pm
I have no idea who has the ChessBase product and in what form. If there is a violation and the copyright holder notifies ChessBase, they then have 30 days to correct the violation.
Now if you, for example, have a binary with the GPLv3 license on Stockfish and the conflicting license on the FF2 network (I assume it’s conflicting for argument’s sake), then it can’t be distributed. The GPLv3 doesn’t supersede the ChessBase license just as the ChessBase license doesn’t supersede the GPLv3 and make SF the property of ChessBase. It’s a dead letter. Turf it and either ask for your money back or ask ChessBase for a version that complies with both licenses.
I don't see how it could be a "conflicting" license if is included in the binary is already inside the exe using GPLv3 code. Are you saying that if I sell you a program that falls under GPL and then after some time you ask for the source, I could simply say.. sorry You have to change to my new "fixed" version before you can get the source, or just give you a refund, instead of Opensorucing the complete source with all its parts?
Last edited by Ckappe on Mon Feb 15, 2021 8:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
hgm wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:52 pmCustomers can ask all they want, and ChessBase can happily ignore their requests. Only the copyright holder has any legal standing in this.
Could you please stop saying obviously wrong things and never provide any basis to support these claims? https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/c ... dex_en.htm
"if goods you bought turn out to be faulty or do not look or work as advertised" so anyone who thought of buying an original engine can ask for a refund.
the freedom to use the software for any purpose,
the freedom to change the software to suit your needs,
the freedom to share the software with your friends and neighbors, and
the freedom to share the changes you make. "
It is your right, as a user, to be able to modify a GPL software and not providing the sources violates one of the bases of the license.
I’ve already posted text from various FSF publications above addressing most of this, but once more into the fray.
HGM is correct. The only party with standing to address the violations is the copyright holder. If there is something wrong with the product, then you are also correct, but those are two different issues.
Once ChessBase addresses any violations and distributes the binary and the net separately under different licenses, then the freedoms above are not infringed.
Fat Titz by Stockfish, the engine with the bodaciously big net. Remember: size matters. If you want to learn more about this engine just google for "Fat Titz".
dkappe wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:49 pm
I have no idea who has the ChessBase product and in what form. If there is a violation and the copyright holder notifies ChessBase, they then have 30 days to correct the violation.
Now if you, for example, have a binary with the GPLv3 license on Stockfish and the conflicting license on the FF2 network (I assume it’s conflicting for argument’s sake), then it can’t be distributed. The GPLv3 doesn’t supersede the ChessBase license just as the ChessBase license doesn’t supersede the GPLv3 and make SF the property of ChessBase. It’s a dead letter. Turf it and either ask for your money back or ask ChessBase for a version that complies with both licenses.
I don't see how it could be a "conflicting" license if is included in the binary is already inside the exe using GPLv3 code. Are you saying that if I sell you a program that falls under GPL and then after some time you ask for the source, I could simply say.. sorry You have to change to my new "fixed" version before you can get the source, or just give you a refund, instead of Opensorucing the complete source with all its parts?
Your example is flawed. If you sell me a program that includes both GPL and proprietary material and I ask for the source, you’d have to tell me “sorry, I don’t own the rights to part of the program” and then stop distributing the program, as well as notifying anyone else who might have further distributed the program that they needed to put the worms back in the can.
Fat Titz by Stockfish, the engine with the bodaciously big net. Remember: size matters. If you want to learn more about this engine just google for "Fat Titz".
Fulvio wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 8:16 pm"if goods you bought turn out to be faulty or do not look or work as advertised" so anyone who thought of buying an original engine can ask for a refund.
The keywords here are 'advertized' and 'thought'. If your expectations were different from what was advertized, it is your own fault, and you cannot invoke this law. 'Not being original' cannot be considered 'faulty' in the sense of this clause, apart from the fact that it is not even the case here: the combination of engine and net obviously is original. It is just that some of its components are reused. What you suggest is like claiming a car you bought is 'faulty' because it does use the same tires as an earlier model, and you thought you were buying an 'original car'.
ChessBase did not advertize you could freely redistribute FF2, right?
Fulvio wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 8:16 pm"if goods you bought turn out to be faulty or do not look or work as advertised" so anyone who thought of buying an original engine can ask for a refund.
The keywords here are 'advertized' and 'thought'.
Read at least 5 lines of the posted links:
"If you bought a product or a service online or outside of a shop (by telephone, mail order, from a door-to-door salesperson), you also have the right to cancel and return your order within 14 days, for any reason and without a justification."
Feeding more misinformation to low information consumers
The above is yet another clear demonstration of why CCRL should correctly list FF2 as a version of Stockfish with a different network.
dkappe wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 7:49 pm
I have no idea who has the ChessBase product and in what form. If there is a violation and the copyright holder notifies ChessBase, they then have 30 days to correct the violation.
Now if you, for example, have a binary with the GPLv3 license on Stockfish and the conflicting license on the FF2 network (I assume it’s conflicting for argument’s sake), then it can’t be distributed. The GPLv3 doesn’t supersede the ChessBase license just as the ChessBase license doesn’t supersede the GPLv3 and make SF the property of ChessBase. It’s a dead letter. Turf it and either ask for your money back or ask ChessBase for a version that complies with both licenses.
I don't see how it could be a "conflicting" license if is included in the binary is already inside the exe using GPLv3 code. Are you saying that if I sell you a program that falls under GPL and then after some time you ask for the source, I could simply say.. sorry You have to change to my new "fixed" version before you can get the source, or just give you a refund, instead of Opensorucing the complete source with all its parts?
Your example is flawed. If you sell me a program that includes both GPL and proprietary material and I ask for the source, you’d have to tell me “sorry, I don’t own the rights to part of the program” and then stop distributing the program, as well as notifying anyone else who might have further distributed the program that they needed to put the worms back in the can.
Who do you propose is the third party license holder in this situation? If both the distributor and the license holder are the same legal entity (ChessBase), then how does this argument work? If you distribute a software to me with a GPL license and you hold a component of that software with another license, you've effectively just relicensed said component, no? You can't just "pull the rug out from under my feet" so to speak, right?
Fulvio wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 8:42 pm"If you bought a product or a service online or outside of a shop (by telephone, mail order, from a door-to-door salesperson), you also have the right to cancel and return your order within 14 days, for any reason and without a justification."
So what has this to do with the matter of demanding source code? You thought I meant that normal customer rights only apply to those who own the copyrights or patents on the product they bought?
hgm wrote: ↑Mon Feb 15, 2021 8:46 pm
So what has this to do with the matter of demanding source code?
You buyed a package and it includes GPL software.
It is your right to have the source code and the possibility to study, analyze or change it.
They are violating your rights, and you can ask for a refund.
You wrote:
Customers can ask all they want, and ChessBase can happily ignore their requests.
