Stockfish: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

[syzygy]

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.

Well, FF2 is a slightly modified SF plus FF2-net. The slight modifications have been published for all I know. So the only issue of substance is FF2-net.

Now, you seem to be right about the missing license text (given that CB seems to have acknowledged this). However, forgetting to include Copying.txt on the DVD (and then acting to correct this) in my view is clearly insufficient to lose all rights under the GPLv3.

Perhaps there is some other insubstantial problem, like the way in which the link to the (anyway trivial) SF modifications is conveyed. Again, it would be beyond silly to revoke the GPLv3 for that.

[ChickenLogic]

I never said it wasn't a crime. I just explained why the evidence is permissable in court and the reasoning behind the moral code of doing so. I'm not a lawyer but I live in the country where the case is filed and I have seen a lot of similar cases and I do know the moral reasoning behind it. Your rage won't change that.

[RubiChess]

In case you didn’t notice: https://stockfishchess.org/blog/2021/ou ... chessbase/

Even though we had our first successes, leading to a recall of the Fat Fritz 2 DVD and the termination of the sales of Houdini 6, we were unable to finalize our dispute out of court.

Can the SF team, or the "team of maintainers and developers of Stockfish", elaborate on what this means?

The Stockfish maintainers have (to my knowledge) never posted informations about the lawsuit in talkchess and will probably be wise and serious enough to never do that in the future.

Whether or not you have the law on your side does not depend on whether or not you lay open your cards on a public forum.

We agree. My comment was meant to be a compliment to the SF maintainers for not posting here.

[hgm]

I suppose there still are the issues of:
1) Whether a NN is a computer program, and the weights are the corresponding machine code.
2) Whether this program counts as linked with a conventional executable when the latter uses the output of the NN it interprets for further calculation
3) What would count as the 'source code' of the NN in the GPL sense.

It will be interesting what the court decides on this.

I can imagine an outcome where (1) and (2) are decided as 'yes, it does', and (3) would be the set of training positions.

In my view the (dynamically loaded) NN is simply a parameter file with an uncopyrightable structure, and the particular choice of values is even less copyrightable.

CB did not violate SF's copyright by not releasing the FF2 net under the GPLv3.
At the same time, there is no copyright on FF2, so anyone can do with it what they want.

This is also a quite possible outcome. Even if it is recognized that the weights file is the binary of a computer program where the training code is the compiler and the training set the source code, the question remains of whether this training set was copyrightable.

[syzygy]

I never said it wasn't a crime. I just explained why the evidence is permissable in court and the reasoning behind the moral code of doing so. I'm not a lawyer but I live in the country where the case is filed and I have seen a lot of similar cases and I do know the moral reasoning behind it. Your rage won't change that.

You said it wasn't hacking. It clearly was hacking. But you don't seem to contest it any longer.

The evidence was obtained in a criminal manner, but you are right that this does not always lead to it being excluded from consideration. In particular, I would not be surprised if German courts tend to admit evidence that was obtained illegally if the law that was violated was not intended to protect the person who is being accused (after all, "Schutznorm" comes from German law).

In this case the crime violated a law intended to protect Houdart and not CB. So there is an argument that the crime committed against Houdart is irrelevant in a lawsuit against CB.

Still, the evidence is dirty and I would not want to stain my own hands by touching it.

Anyway, as I already explained, even if H6 violated the GPLv3, I don't see how CB can be "punished" for that. Certainly CB does not need to take for granted what is concluded on some forum about the legality of H6 based on dirty stolen evidence. First a court would have to conclude that H6 violates the SF copyright. Only then should one expect CB to stop selling H6. (Well, perhaps CB should stop selling H6 after the SF copyright holders have complained and shown the evidence. At least if the evidence seems convincing, CB should probably consult a lawyer on this.)

[syzygy]

We agree. My comment was meant to be a compliment to the SF maintainers for not posting here.

If you mean they are not pushing for a smear campaign, then I fully agree.

But I don't see a problem if they disclosed the complete arguments for their case. (Disclosing the H6 evidence is another matter of course.)

[MikeB]

I never said it wasn't a crime. I just explained why the evidence is permissable in court and the reasoning behind the moral code of doing so. I'm not a lawyer but I live in the country where the case is filed and I have seen a lot of similar cases and I do know the moral reasoning behind it. Your rage won't change that.

You said it wasn't hacking. It clearly was hacking. But you don't seem to contest it any longer.

The evidence was obtained in a criminal manner, but you are right that this does not always lead to it being excluded from consideration. In particular, I would not be surprised if German courts tend to admit evidence that was obtained illegally if the law that was violated was not intended to protect the person who is being accused (after all, "Schutznorm" comes from German law).

In this case the crime violated a law intended to protect Houdart and not CB. So there is an argument that the crime committed against Houdart is irrelevant in a lawsuit against CB.

Still, the evidence is dirty and I would not want to stain my own hands by touching it.

Anyway, as I already explained, even if H6 violated the GPLv3, I don't see how CB can be "punished" for that. Certainly CB does not need to take for granted what is concluded on some forum about the legality of H6 based on dirty stolen evidence. First a court would have to conclude that H6 violates the SF copyright. Only then should one expect CB to stop selling H6. (Well, perhaps CB should stop selling H6 after the SF copyright holders have complained and shown the evidence. At least if the evidence seems convincing, CB should probably consult a lawyer on this.)

Chessbase no longer sells H6. That change was after SF developers filed their complaint.

[dkappe]

Chessbase no longer sells H6. That change was after SF developers filed their complaint.

Was it? My understanding is there was a negotiation prior to any lawsuit being filed (although it’s not clear if it’s actually been filed) during which CB withdrew H6 from its shop. It’s easy to get these facts wrong, but I think getting them right is important.

[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.

Well, FF2 is a slightly modified SF plus FF2-net. The slight modifications have been published for all I know. So the only issue of substance is FF2-net.

Now, you seem to be right about the missing license text (given that CB seems to have acknowledged this). However, forgetting to include Copying.txt on the DVD (and then acting to correct this) in my view is clearly insufficient to lose all rights under the GPLv3.

Perhaps there is some other insubstantial problem, like the way in which the link to the (anyway trivial) SF modifications is conveyed. Again, it would be beyond silly to revoke the GPLv3 for that.

My understanding is that the second violation is Houdini, to which the same people hold copyright as to FF2, so they can go for a "second strike" which allows for permanent license termination. The violations for FF2 were indeed corrected, judging by the DVD recall and the "FF2.1".

In this case the crime violated a law intended to protect Houdart and not CB. So there is an argument that the crime committed against Houdart is irrelevant in a lawsuit against CB.

If I interpret you saying something along "CB might not be liable for Houdarts code" then yes, I think that might be something that whoever claimed copyright violation will have to prove. Though CB's version of Houdini does use code owned by CB. It's not just a distribution of the exact same version that was available directly from RH.

[syzygy]

Chessbase no longer sells H6. That change was after SF developers filed their complaint.

Was it? My understanding is there was a negotiation prior to any lawsuit being filed (although it’s not clear if it’s actually been filed) during which CB withdrew H6 from its shop. It’s easy to get these facts wrong, but I think getting them right is important.

I suspect MikeB did not refer to the filing of a lawsuit but to a complaint letter addressed to CB.