Are neural nets (the weights file) copyrightable?

[towforce]

...Except that if they had not needed that modification (e.g. if SF adapted dynamically to a new net size), they would not have had to offer SF for download but could have given a link to SF's website. (They can still do that, of course, by asking someone else to host their modified SF. That would also get around the perceived problem.)

That was one of the points of my "how to get around the GPL" thread: to unbundle the components. The problem is that customers like to receive a neat package with everything in, not have to download parts from different websites.

[syzygy]

If they had not also released their NNUE net, I think everybody would agree that there was no problem.

I don't agree.

Huh? It would be a copyright violation to take the SF source code, change something in it, and release it with the source under the GPLv3? Even though GPLv3 is meant to allow exactly that?

Let not your hatred of CB blind you...

[Fulvio]

Let not your hatred of CB blind you...

Please don't stoop to personal attacks.

The spirit of the GPL is that you can freely redistribute the modified work only if you pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received.
All these attempts with elaborate logical constructions (they are different files, they are data, they have different authors, they could be distributed separately, etc ..) to try to elude the GPL are not new.
The classic example is that of busybox, where several manufacturers thought they could get away with saying it was just a small part of the firmware, blah, blah, blah (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BusyBox#GPL_lawsuits). It is important to notice that it was not enough to later publish everything, but they also had to pay (in general based on the revenues of the product).
Fat Fritz 2 is distributed as a single work (the strongest engine) and it is used as a single work (launch FF2, which is very different from launch the modified stockfish, change the UCI setting to load the network). It is copy rights, so how it is distributed matters a lot.
There is also the attempt to create confusion by saying that neural networks are new things.
I have a reproduction of the 1865 edition of "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" which was published with illustrations (by John Tenniel).
Could someone have distributed the book with a different story and the same illustrations without permission? No.
Could someone have distributed the book with different illustrations without permission? No.
Can someone distribute stockfish with a different NNUE without permission? No.

[hgm]

Well, there is no copyright on binaries anyway, right? They only represent the functionality of the program.

[Michel]

I do not understand this sentence in the GPL3

To “modify” a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission

How could it ever require any kind of permission to modify something? Permission should only be required to distribute the modification.

So I guess the intended meaning is

To “modify” a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission when distributing the changed work

But on what grounds should the clause in the GPL-3 be interpreted in this way? Am I misunderstanding the concept of "requiring copyright permission".

[Fulvio]

Well, there is no copyright on binaries anyway, right? They only represent the functionality of the program.

It would be nice if when someone thinks about copyright they do it from the point of view: if I create something how can I prevent it from being redistributed without my permission? Instead of how can I circumvent copyright to exploit the work of others without permission?

However, I also think that it is not possible to apply copyright to just a neural network: it is evident that a slightly revisited book is the same work, while it is difficult to prove that two different binaries are the same network.

[Fulvio]

I do not understand this sentence in the GPL3

To “modify” a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission

How could it ever require any kind of permission to modify something?

It is used to define "covered work":
1) “covered work” = either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program.
2) "work based on the Program" = a “modified version” of the earlier work or a work “based on” the earlier work.
3) "modified version" = to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an exact copy.

If 3) included all the changes, without the "in a fashion requiring copyright permission", it would be invalid, because of fair use:
https://thelawtog.com/memes-violate-copyright-law/

[Michel]

I do not understand this sentence in the GPL3

To “modify” a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission

How could it ever require any kind of permission to modify something?

It is used to define "covered work":
1) “covered work” = either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program.
2) "work based on the Program" = a “modified version” of the earlier work or a work “based on” the earlier work.
3) "modified version" = to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an exact copy.

If 3) included all the changes, without the "in a fashion requiring copyright permission", it would be invalid, because of fair use:
https://thelawtog.com/memes-violate-copyright-law/

I know what it is used for. What I want to know is why it is not an empty condition. As I wrote

• How could it ever require any kind of permission to modify something?

In other words if you interpret the clause in common English then it will never apply. Obviously this cannot be the intention. Hence my question.

[Dann Corbit]

If they had not also released their NNUE net, I think everybody would agree that there was no problem.

I don't agree.
Let's say you pick a videogame which loads some jpg images.
You change some of the images with your owns and then you sell the modified videogame without permission.
I consider that a copyright infringment.

If the video game is GPL, where is the infringement?

[syzygy]

Let not your hatred of CB blind you...

Please don't stoop to personal attacks.

What personal attack?

Fat Fritz 2 is distributed as a single work (the strongest engine) and it is used as a single work (launch FF2, which is very different from launch the modified stockfish, change the UCI setting to load the network).

What you were responding to is this statement of mine:

If they had not also released their NNUE net, I think everybody would agree that there was no problem.

So I am talking about taking the SF source, making a small change to it, and releasing the modified executable together with its modified source.

Clearly this is allowed by the GPLv3.