Fat Fritz 2

[dkappe]

That’s not how copyright works. The whole work doesn’t magically become GPL just because you are in violation of the license. For example, if someone distributes one of my nets embedded in a GPLv3 licensed engine, that doesn’t mean I give up my copyright.

Actually that is how copyright works, only indirectly.

If someone distributes one of your nets embedded in a GPLv3-licensed engine, they are in violation of GPLv3, and the combination becomes undistributable (for everyone, including for them). But if they owned the copyright to the network, they had committed estoppel and implicitly licensed the network under GPLv3.

Or in different terms: They distributed (even sold!) a product well knowing that one of its parts was GPLv3, so the only reasonable interpretation is that they licensed the whole under GPLv3. You cannot after-the-fact come and say “oh, no, we sold you this product, but we chose not to grant you the rights we knew we had to grant you to be allowed to make that sale”.

Depends on the harm. Promissory estoppel isn’t a big rake that pulls everything out from a proprietary status. If you relied on the software to build a business, that’s one thing. If you relied on it to win a few elo in the playchess engine room, I doubt a state court will rule in your favor.

[Alayan]

The GPL is not anti business or anti profit. Quite the opposite. It just seems that in chess circles, profit is viewed as evil.

Komodo authors sell their work, and people are fine with it.

What's morally objectionable with FF2:
- Selling something that's 99% not your work. Yes, the GPL doesn't forbid selling free software, but that's not the point. Chessbase is not performing a socially valuable work, it's profiteering.
- Very poor crediting of the original authors.
- Misleading claims regarding the engine's nature. "learning from the surgical precision of Stockfish’s legendary search" is a bad euphemism for directly using Stockfish.
- Misleading claims regarding the engine's strength. It is using SF-dev as a base, but its strength (in unspecified conditions) is compared to SF12 to claim it as "number 1".

How would Chessbase react to someone publishing FF2's binary for download ? Arguably the binary is one work covered by the GPL meaning it can be freely distributed.

EDIT:

.
If someone distributes one of your nets embedded in a GPLv3-licensed engine, they are in violation of GPLv3, and the combination becomes undistributable (for everyone, including for them). But if they owned the copyright to the network, they had committed estoppel and implicitly licensed the network under GPLv3.

That's my interpretation as well.

[gaard]

That’s not how copyright works. The whole work doesn’t magically become GPL just because you are in violation of the license. For example, if someone distributes one of my nets embedded in a GPLv3 licensed engine, that doesn’t mean I give up my copyright.

Actually that is how copyright works, only indirectly.

If someone distributes one of your nets embedded in a GPLv3-licensed engine, they are in violation of GPLv3, and the combination becomes undistributable (for everyone, including for them). But if they owned the copyright to the network, they had committed estoppel and implicitly licensed the network under GPLv3.

Or in different terms: They distributed (even sold!) a product well knowing that one of its parts was GPLv3, so the only reasonable interpretation is that they licensed the whole under GPLv3. You cannot after-the-fact come and say “oh, no, we sold you this product, but we chose not to grant you the rights we knew we had to grant you to be allowed to make that sale”.

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.

[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?

[AndrewGrant]

Unless Alberto Plata took serious efforts to hide the weights, it would not be very hard to extract the weights from inside the binary. Stockfish Networks, produced by the Stockfish trainer (which these people undoubtedly used, since he copy pasted the entire Leela pipeline last time around with DeusX), have headers that can easily be identified inside the binary file. Someone can grab the weights out, and then compile it back into whatever the latest master of Stockfish is. That way you stay up to date, but also toss any garbage "personality" changes that Alberto made.

A question back to Dkappe -- Is it a violation of (whomever; Albert?) trained the Network to reverse engineer the binary and extract the weights into a typical Stockfish form? To distribute that?

[dkappe]

Unless Alberto Plata took serious efforts to hide the weights, it would not be very hard to extract the weights from inside the binary. Stockfish Networks, produced by the Stockfish trainer (which these people undoubtedly used, since he copy pasted the entire Leela pipeline last time around with DeusX), have headers that can easily be identified inside the binary file. Someone can grab the weights out, and then compile it back into whatever the latest master of Stockfish is. That way you stay up to date, but also toss any garbage "personality" changes that Alberto made.

A question back to Dkappe -- Is it a violation of (whomever; Albert?) trained the Network to reverse engineer the binary and extract the weights into a typical Stockfish form? To distribute that?

I’d consult with a lawyer if you were planning to do that, and not one of those Talkchess “GPL” lawyers.

[AndrewGrant]

Unless Alberto Plata took serious efforts to hide the weights, it would not be very hard to extract the weights from inside the binary. Stockfish Networks, produced by the Stockfish trainer (which these people undoubtedly used, since he copy pasted the entire Leela pipeline last time around with DeusX), have headers that can easily be identified inside the binary file. Someone can grab the weights out, and then compile it back into whatever the latest master of Stockfish is. That way you stay up to date, but also toss any garbage "personality" changes that Alberto made.

A question back to Dkappe -- Is it a violation of (whomever; Albert?) trained the Network to reverse engineer the binary and extract the weights into a typical Stockfish form? To distribute that?

I’d consult with a lawyer if you were planning to do that, and not one of those Talkchess “GPL” lawyers.

Not planning on doing anything. Under your understanding of the weights being compiled in, what I typed up would constitute a violation of someone's rights? I'll note that you are also one of the Talkchess “GPL” lawyers.

[dkappe]

Unless Alberto Plata took serious efforts to hide the weights, it would not be very hard to extract the weights from inside the binary. Stockfish Networks, produced by the Stockfish trainer (which these people undoubtedly used, since he copy pasted the entire Leela pipeline last time around with DeusX), have headers that can easily be identified inside the binary file. Someone can grab the weights out, and then compile it back into whatever the latest master of Stockfish is. That way you stay up to date, but also toss any garbage "personality" changes that Alberto made.

A question back to Dkappe -- Is it a violation of (whomever; Albert?) trained the Network to reverse engineer the binary and extract the weights into a typical Stockfish form? To distribute that?

I’d consult with a lawyer if you were planning to do that, and not one of those Talkchess “GPL” lawyers.

Not planning on doing anything. Under your understanding of the weights being compiled in, what I typed up would constitute a violation of someone's rights? I'll note that you are also one of the Talkchess “GPL” lawyers.

Guilty as charged. To be frank, I’ve had lots to do with legal discussions about various stripes of open source software in commercial software, but embedding data in an executable wasn’t on the menu. My instinct would be not to do it (embedding, that is).

[Collingwood]

Rybka, Houdini and now this one!
The question is:
Should I delete the links to Chessbase from the webpage?

Other products are really good (example: Chessbase database).

Possibly. At least add a message publicising what Chessbase has done here.

What has it done?

Facilitated the sale of a product, in violation of the rights of another party, in regards to Houdini.

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.

[AndrewGrant]

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.

All roads lead back to DeusX on that front