Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
Harvey Williamson wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 9:56 pm I have split off the rest of this thread to Engine origins so if you don't want to stay on topic please go there.
Thanks
And that is the part of the thread I left here.
How notification and termination work in practice
However, suggesting that the GPL also covers neural network weights created by or for use with GPL code goes beyond this position. Models and weights are not the same as linked code or libraries. The relationship between GPL code and a model created with it is usually a relationship of software to data — not software to software. Therefore, claiming that GPL code requires resulting models to be licensed under GPL is a tenuous position.
“GPL v3 does have a cure period, unlike GPL v2,” Meeker says. “For GPL v2, when there is a license violation, the license automatically terminates. For GPL v3, the license can be restored. So this case might be an interesting test of the termination and cure provisions of GPL v3 and how they work in practice.”
tells me that there's more to it than just the situation with the embedded network, on which everyone seems fixated for some reason. Maybe FF2 didn't provide the license text, or sources at all? I don't own the package so I can't tell. Maybe someone who bought could look for some author/license attribution in the installed version of FF2?ChessBase repeatedly violated central obligations of the GPL, which ensures that the user of the software is informed of their rights. These rights are explicit in the license and include access to the corresponding sources, and the right to reproduce, modify and distribute GPLed programs royalty-free.
dangi12012 wrote:No one wants to touch anything you have posted. That proves you now have negative reputations since everyone knows already you are a forum troll.
Maybe you copied your stockfish commits from someone else too?
I will look into that.
dkappe wrote: ↑Tue Aug 03, 2021 9:22 pm I’m really not eager to reopen this thread, but there’s been an article published that interviews an honest to goodness expert on open source legal matters as opposed to a programmer pretending to be one.
Worth noting are the two areas that are likely to be tested by this case:
Status of NN weights
How notification and termination work in practice
However, suggesting that the GPL also covers neural network weights created by or for use with GPL code goes beyond this position. Models and weights are not the same as linked code or libraries. The relationship between GPL code and a model created with it is usually a relationship of software to data — not software to software. Therefore, claiming that GPL code requires resulting models to be licensed under GPL is a tenuous position.
“GPL v3 does have a cure period, unlike GPL v2,” Meeker says. “For GPL v2, when there is a license violation, the license automatically terminates. For GPL v3, the license can be restored. So this case might be an interesting test of the termination and cure provisions of GPL v3 and how they work in practice.”
https://fossa.com/blog/stockfish-vs-chessbase-gpl-v3/
What makes you think the status of the NN weights bears any relevance to the legal grievance(s) made by the SF team? Maybe you've seen the actual suit? Why is this likely to be tested by this case?Worth noting are the two areas that are likely to be tested by this case:
It’s always useful to read TFA. Those are not my thoughts but those of Heather Meeker.gaard wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 7:13 amWhat makes you think the status of the NN weights bears any relevance to the legal grievance(s) made by the SF team? Maybe you've seen the actual suit? Why is this likely to be tested by this case?Worth noting are the two areas that are likely to be tested by this case:
O'Melveny & Myers LLP Is an international law firm with some 750 lawyers and does work in this (open source licensing) area.About Heather Meeker: Heather Meeker is a globally recognized expert on open source software licensing and compliance. She’s authored the go-to book on the topic, and is a Partner in the Mergers and Acquisitions group at O'Melveny & Myers LLP and a Founding Portfolio Partner at OSS Capital.
Your response is then:dkappe wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 7:46 amIt’s always useful to read TFA. Those are not my thoughts but those of Heather Meeker.gaard wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 7:13 amWhat makes you think the status of the NN weights bears any relevance to the legal grievance(s) made by the SF team? Maybe you've seen the actual suit? Why is this likely to be tested by this case?Worth noting are the two areas that are likely to be tested by this case:
O'Melveny & Myers LLP Is an international law firm with some 750 lawyers and does work in this (open source licensing) area.About Heather Meeker: Heather Meeker is a globally recognized expert on open source software licensing and compliance. She’s authored the go-to book on the topic, and is a Partner in the Mergers and Acquisitions group at O'Melveny & Myers LLP and a Founding Portfolio Partner at OSS Capital.
I don’t know why you expected “more”. I offered it up as an article with information on the lawsuit from an expert and cited two paragraphs that I thought nicely summarized it.
What makes you think the status of the NN weights bears any relevance to the legal grievance(s) made by the SF team? Maybe you've seen the actual suit? Why is this likely to be tested by this case?dkappe wrote: ↑Wed Aug 04, 2021 3:15 pmI don’t know why you expected “more”. I offered it up as an article with information on the lawsuit from an expert and cited two paragraphs that I thought nicely summarized it.
If you want programmers offering up their take on the law, there’s plenty of that back a few pages.