Fat Fritz 2

[dkappe]

Chessbase from the beginning has been very deceitful in its marketing of Fat Fritz. The little they wrote about using Lc0 exe. etc. was only added after repeated questioning from users.

I don’t recall it that way. I recall there being explicit mention of lc0 and the leela chess zero project in most if not all of the articles and marketing blurbs. It’s not my habit of reading that sort of stuff about software I’m not planning to buy, but I felt the need to respond to uninformed and rumor mongering comments at the time.

[gaard]

And more to the point, ChessBase is supposed to provide all sources required to build the software, compilation scripts and networks included, regardless of what license the network falls under, as required by the GPL, to whomever it distributes the software.

Which network? Any old arbitrary network?

No. If I were to find a bug in FF2, I should be able to rebuild it with all else being equal, minus the bug, for example.

See https://github.com/official-stockfish/S ... opying.txt

Look for the part that begins as such:

The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities.

[Collingwood]

Chessbase from the beginning has been very deceitful in its marketing of Fat Fritz. The little they wrote about using Lc0 exe. etc. was only added after repeated questioning from users.

I don’t recall it that way. I recall there being explicit mention of lc0 and the leela chess zero project in most if not all of the articles and marketing blurbs. It’s not my habit of reading that sort of stuff about software I’m not planning to buy, but I felt the need to respond to uninformed and rumor mongering comments at the time.

I saw the first advertisement/"article" about Fat Fritz on their website. It said as little as possible about Lc0. Then in the comments people started asking and saying if they had used it they had to state it. Someone (presumably on this forum) claimed that his comment about that had been deleted by Chessbase. However, Chessbase did change the advertisement/"article" to make the use of Lc0 slightly clearer. I saw this change, i.e. saw both versions. I did not see the deleted comment before its deletion, but saw other, undeleted comments.

[dkappe]

Chessbase from the beginning has been very deceitful in its marketing of Fat Fritz. The little they wrote about using Lc0 exe. etc. was only added after repeated questioning from users.

I don’t recall it that way. I recall there being explicit mention of lc0 and the leela chess zero project in most if not all of the articles and marketing blurbs. It’s not my habit of reading that sort of stuff about software I’m not planning to buy, but I felt the need to respond to uninformed and rumor mongering comments at the time.

I saw the first advertisement/"article" about Fat Fritz on their website. It said as little as possible about Lc0. Then in the comments people started asking and saying if they had used it they had to state it. Someone (presumably on this forum) claimed that his comment about that had been deleted by Chessbase. However, Chessbase did change the advertisement/"article" to make the use of Lc0 slightly clearer. I saw this change, i.e. saw both versions. I did not see the deleted comment before its deletion, but saw other, undeleted comments.

Perhaps it was changed a few minutes after publication? I recall seeing the announcement shortly after release and it already had prominent mention of lc0.

[Modern Times]

I find it hard to believe that Chessbase would not have checked the legal side of this, either with in-house lawyers or external legal advice. So they must consider themselves to be on solid ground.

[dkappe]

And more to the point, ChessBase is supposed to provide all sources required to build the software, compilation scripts and networks included, regardless of what license the network falls under, as required by the GPL, to whomever it distributes the software.

Which network? Any old arbitrary network?

No. If I were to find a bug in FF2, I should be able to rebuild it with all else being equal, minus the bug, for example.

See https://github.com/official-stockfish/S ... opying.txt

Look for the part that begins as such:

The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities.

Just checked it out and compiled it. Loaded a 512 mirrored network and ran it. Looks ok.

[AndrewGrant]

I find it hard to believe that Chessbase would not have checked the legal side of this, either with in-house lawyers or external legal advice. So they must consider themselves to be on solid ground.

I'll raise you their continued selling of Houdini. I don't think they care about legalities

[MikeB]

For those that want the source ...will release a clone soon ...

https://github.com/DanielUranga/Stockfish/tree/ff2

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

I find it hard to believe that Chessbase would not have checked the legal side of this, either with in-house lawyers or external legal advice. So they must consider themselves to be on solid ground.

Or they simply have a contract with the person who supplied the engine that says he or she will indemnify them against legal action concerning the engine.

[dkappe]

I find it hard to believe that Chessbase would not have checked the legal side of this, either with in-house lawyers or external legal advice. So they must consider themselves to be on solid ground.

Or they simply have a contract with the person who supplied the engine that says he or she will indemnify them against legal action concerning the engine.

What legal action? The GPL is working as intended. If I want to sell my Night Nurse networks, great. If I want to distribute Stockfish so people can use it to run my networks as long as I provide the source code, great. That’s explicitly allowed under the terms of the GPLv3.

Just because you don’t like an individual or a company doesn’t make their use of GPL’d software somehow illegal.