Stockfish: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

[dkappe]

Your response is then:

RTFA?

We expected more.

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.

If you want programmers offering up their take on the law, there’s plenty of that back a few pages.

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?

Simple questions. Nobody will think less of you if you can't answer any of them.

What makes me think that? Nothing. I don’t have an opinion on it either way. I find it interesting that a lawyer and internationally recognized expert on the topic thinks that a) it is relevant to the case and b) a “tenuous” position.

[dkappe]

And for all those who have lost track amidst the kerfuffle, the article is entitled “Stockfish vs. ChessBase and What it Means for GPL v3.”

I wouldn’t characterize it as partisan, but rather a dispassionate and short interview of a prominent open source licensing legal expert about the lawsuit. But I’ll let everyone make up their own minds.

https://fossa.com/blog/stockfish-vs-chessbase-gpl-v3/

[gaard]

And for all those who have lost track amidst the kerfuffle, the article is entitled “Stockfish vs. ChessBase and What it Means for GPL v3.”

I wouldn’t characterize it as partisan, but rather a dispassionate and short interview of a prominent open source licensing legal expert about the lawsuit. But I’ll let everyone make up their own minds.

https://fossa.com/blog/stockfish-vs-chessbase-gpl-v3/

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

This should help you get up to speed.

[Sopel]

I feel like anyone bringing up the embedded network fiasco is only here to try undermine the legitimacy of Stockfish's lawsuit, and maybe cope with their hopeful views. I'm certain that this lawsuit would not have been filed on such a fragile argument. Surely there are people here that bought FF2 and could look for actual violations (though I'm not sure if it's easy to downgrade, or how CB's update process works. I know they did address some things)? This whole thread has been going on recycling a months old speculation about the embedded network, and such discussion holds no value; no one seems to have done any investigation on the claims they post, perhaps fearing they would find something not aligning with their views? Afterall, I wouldn't want to find out the software I'm using is illegal. I don't think we can get anything constructive here until someone knowledgable looks at the (initial) FF2 distribution.

[dkappe]

I feel like anyone bringing up the embedded network fiasco is only here to try undermine the legitimacy of Stockfish's lawsuit, and maybe cope with their hopeful views. I'm certain that this lawsuit would not have been filed on such a fragile argument. Surely there are people here that bought FF2 and could look for actual violations (though I'm not sure if it's easy to downgrade, or how CB's update process works. I know they did address some things)? This whole thread has been going on recycling a months old speculation about the embedded network, and such discussion holds no value; no one seems to have done any investigation on the claims they post, perhaps fearing they would find something not aligning with their views? Afterall, I wouldn't want to find out the software I'm using is illegal. I don't think we can get anything constructive here until someone knowledgable looks at the (initial) FF2 distribution.

Note that the article I cited was less than a week old when I posted it and was published in a open source industry blog quoting a legal expert with full knowledge of the SF projects public postings.

Leaving aside your imprecise use of “illegal,” you keep implying that there is more to the case when it is actually filed. I sure hope so. I feel sorry for the paralegal that will be drafting the text sometime in November.

[Sopel]

Note that the article I cited was less than a week old when I posted it and was published in a open source industry blog quoting a legal expert with full knowledge of the SF projects public postings.

Sure, so they know about as much as we do. And considering that there's nothing in the public postings that holds legal value their expertise is useless.

Leaving aside your imprecise use of “illegal,” you keep implying that there is more to the case when it is actually filed. I sure hope so. I feel sorry for the paralegal that will be drafting the text sometime in November.

I'm just saying that whoever from Stockfish worked on getting the evidence for FF2's violations likely had only commonly available material to work with. That means that if this forum really wanted to understand the case it would try to search through this commonly available material. Without it the discussions on this topic are kinda hollow and have been often turning to ad hominems.

PS. isn't CB's recall of the DVD a strong indication that a violation did indeed happen? Even if it could have been perhaps considered ungrounded, had they not reacted?

[dkappe]

Note that the article I cited was less than a week old when I posted it and was published in a open source industry blog quoting a legal expert with full knowledge of the SF projects public postings.

Sure, so they know about as much as we. And considering that there's nothing in the public postings that holds legal value their expertise is useless.

Leaving aside your imprecise use of “illegal,” you keep implying that there is more to the case when it is actually filed. I sure hope so. I feel sorry for the paralegal that will be drafting the text sometime in November.

I'm just saying that whoever from Stockfish worked on getting the evidence for FF2's violations likely had only commonly available material to work with. That means that if this forum really wanted to understand the case it would try to search this commonly available material. Without it the discussions on this topic are kinda hollow and have been often turning to ad hominems.

You’ve never worked with a high priced law firm that has an interest in a case, I presume? This is the expert’s bread and butter. We may think it is an unimportant case in our little backwater, but you better believe the multi-billion dollar OSS industry is keeping a close eye on this. They probably have a pretty good idea which judges could be hearing the case and possible appeal. Expect amicus briefs aplenty if it ever gets to court.

Now if what you say is true and there is nothing of legal value in SF’s public statements, then is this just a PR stunt designed to besmirch ChessBase’s reputation? I hope that’s not the case.

P.S. I’ve tried to be civil during these discussions. I’ve been called a few names but have refrained from doing so myself. If I’ve engaged in any ad hominem arguments in this thread, please point them out to me and I will apologize unreservedly.

[AndrewGrant]

Note that the article I cited was less than a week old when I posted it and was published in a open source industry blog quoting a legal expert with full knowledge of the SF projects public postings.

Sure, so they know about as much as we. And considering that there's nothing in the public postings that holds legal value their expertise is useless.

Leaving aside your imprecise use of “illegal,” you keep implying that there is more to the case when it is actually filed. I sure hope so. I feel sorry for the paralegal that will be drafting the text sometime in November.

I'm just saying that whoever from Stockfish worked on getting the evidence for FF2's violations likely had only commonly available material to work with. That means that if this forum really wanted to understand the case it would try to search this commonly available material. Without it the discussions on this topic are kinda hollow and have been often turning to ad hominems.

You’ve never worked with a high priced law firm that has an interest in a case, I presume? This is the expert’s bread and butter. We may think it is an unimportant case in our little backwater, but you better believe the multi-billion dollar OSS industry is keeping a close eye on this. They probably have a pretty good idea which judges could be hearing the case and possible appeal. Expect amicus briefs aplenty if it ever gets to court.

Now if what you say is true and there is nothing of legal value in SF’s public statements, then is this just a PR stunt designed to besmirch ChessBase’s reputation? I hope that’s not the case.

P.S. I’ve tried to be civil during these discussions. I’ve been called a few names but have refrained from doing so myself. If I’ve engaged in any ad hominem arguments in this thread, please point them out to me and I will apologize unreservedly.

I still feel like no one has read the Stockfish blog. Stockfish authors revoked the GPLv3 rights of Chessbase, and Chessbase ignored. That is the entire point of interest. Nothing to do with Neural Network weights. Hardly to do with the other GPLv3 violations that were already acknowledged by Chessbase.

[gaard]

Note that the article I cited was less than a week old when I posted it and was published in a open source industry blog quoting a legal expert with full knowledge of the SF projects public postings.

Sure, so they know about as much as we. And considering that there's nothing in the public postings that holds legal value their expertise is useless.

Leaving aside your imprecise use of “illegal,” you keep implying that there is more to the case when it is actually filed. I sure hope so. I feel sorry for the paralegal that will be drafting the text sometime in November.

I'm just saying that whoever from Stockfish worked on getting the evidence for FF2's violations likely had only commonly available material to work with. That means that if this forum really wanted to understand the case it would try to search this commonly available material. Without it the discussions on this topic are kinda hollow and have been often turning to ad hominems.

You’ve never worked with a high priced law firm that has an interest in a case, I presume? This is the expert’s bread and butter. We may think it is an unimportant case in our little backwater, but you better believe the multi-billion dollar OSS industry is keeping a close eye on this. They probably have a pretty good idea which judges could be hearing the case and possible appeal. Expect amicus briefs aplenty if it ever gets to court.

Now if what you say is true and there is nothing of legal value in SF’s public statements, then is this just a PR stunt designed to besmirch ChessBase’s reputation? I hope that’s not the case.

P.S. I’ve tried to be civil during these discussions. I’ve been called a few names but have refrained from doing so myself. If I’ve engaged in any ad hominem arguments in this thread, please point them out to me and I will apologize unreservedly.

Their bread and butter is speculative legal opinions for proceedings they are not privy to? Sounds like they're going to put us all out of work

[Sopel]

Now if what you say is true and there is nothing of legal value in SF’s public statements, then is this just a PR stunt designed to besmirch ChessBase’s reputation? I hope that’s not the case.

I presume the court has received a different document than we did.