Stockfish: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

[AndrewGrant]

https://perlenvombodensee.de/2021/07/21 ... chessbase/

Dem Titel Fat Fritz 2.0 (DVD) liegen leider nicht die vollständigen GPL3-Lizenzbedingungen bei. Aus diesem Grund sind wir gezwungen, den Titel zurückzurufen und den Verkauf der DVD-Version zu stoppen. Bitte beenden Sie den Verkauf der DVD-Version am Mittwoch, den 31. März 2021. Fat Fritz 2.0 (DVD) darf ab dem 31. März 2021 nicht weiter verkauft werden.

Urban rumor has it that ChessBase wrote this to every reseller around mid-March.

Rumors become fact during discovery...

[smatovic]

Hmm, did ChessBase violate SF GPLv3 by selling Houdini 6? AFAIK they were not involved into development, and the engine is/was available on multiple shops. Poor lill judge, I just imagine they takes a look into TC EO....

--
Srdja

[Raphexon]

are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met."

Perhaps this is the key phrase. It can be revoked if conditions are not met.

There is a 30 day clause to rectify any issues if I recall reading correctly.
If they're talking FF2, there was an issue with the net being embedded with the engine when originally released, but that was fixed very quickly, well within the 30 days.

Jon may well be right, but I'm no expert.

30 days only for the first strike.
They were too slow with FF2, so first strike.

Afterwards they were still selling Houdini, so strike 2.

License revoked.

With regards to FF2, the exe and net separation was included in the first patch that came less than a week after release (called FF2 SE).
That is less than 30 days. How was that too slow?

The GPL clearly says that once fixed the license Is reinstated.

The source code wasn't available anyway.
Telling people they can "find it on github" isn't the same as making it available btw. (besides that user not even being a chessbase employee)

[Graham Banks]

The source code wasn't available anyway.
Telling people they can "find it on github" isn't the same as making it available btw. (besides that user not even being a chessbase employee)

If it's available on github, then of course it's available. That's just splitting hairs.

[Raphexon]

The source code wasn't available anyway.
Telling people they can "find it on github" isn't the same as making it available btw. (besides that user not even being a chessbase employee)

If it's available on github, then of course it's available. That's just splitting hairs.

It's not...

[Raphexon]

Next you'll argue Houdini source code is available and therefore not a GPL violation. "Just ask for source on some Russian forum"

[Graham Banks]

Next you'll argue Houdini source code is available and therefore not a GPL violation. "Just ask for source on some Russian forum"

It's how the Houdini source was obtained that bothers me.

[RubiChess]

Next you'll argue Houdini source code is available and therefore not a GPL violation. "Just ask for source on some Russian forum"

It's how the Houdini source was obtained that bothers me.

And does it bother you (and some others in this forum) more than the obvious crime of some greedy people stealing code and making money with it? That is the impression people get and that is in contradiction to my feelings of what is right and what is wrong.

When I was young I liked to read the story of Robin Hood. He was an outlaw but he had my (and probably almost everyones) full sympathy.
And Cucumber is kind of a Robin Hood in this case.

Regards, Andreas

[ChickenLogic]

Next you'll argue Houdini source code is available and therefore not a GPL violation. "Just ask for source on some Russian forum"

It's how the Houdini source was obtained that bothers me.

Evidence gathered by guessing passwords isn't illegal in Germany.
Let's say you did something bad and the evidence is in your car then there are 2 possibilities:
a) a person broke in -> this is illegal and the evidence won't be used in court (unless the police gets a permission from a judge or you save a life by breaking into the car)
b) you left your roof and doors open and it was clearly visible -> the evidence will be used in court

[Graham Banks]

Next you'll argue Houdini source code is available and therefore not a GPL violation. "Just ask for source on some Russian forum"

It's how the Houdini source was obtained that bothers me.

And does it bother you (and some others in this forum) more than the obvious crime of some greedy people stealing code and making money with it? That is the impression people get and that is in contradiction to my feelings of what is right and what is wrong.

When I was young I liked to read the story of Robin Hood. He was an outlaw but he had my (and probably almost everyones) full sympathy.
And Cucumber is kind of a Robin Hood in this case.

Regards, Andreas

I am a Christian.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm surprised that stolen code would be allowed to be admissable in a court of law.

Certainly looks like Houdart might have done wrong, but after the Rybka witch-hunt, all of this sort of stuff sickens me.

Any way, doesn't matter what I think. It's gone before a court, so they will decide.