Fat Fritz 2

[dkappe]

Who do you propose is the third party license holder in this situation? If both the distributor and the license holder are the same legal entity (ChessBase), then how does this argument work? If you distribute a software to me with a GPL license and you hold a component of that software with another license, you've effectively just relicensed said component, no? You can't just "pull the rug out from under my feet" so to speak, right?

Well, I don’t actually know who owns the copyright on the net and, if it was licensed to ChessBase, then under what terms.

But let’s assume that it belongs to ChessBase. The FSF’s own FAQ and explanatory text details the steps you would have to take and the legal text you would have to write to distribute your proprietary software or data in a GPL work. It doesn’t magically happen when you distribute a binary. That binary is then a dud that no one can distribute.

The only possible way that this turns out differently is through ‘promissory estoppel.’ But here you would have to have built up a business that relies on the software. Somehow I doubt that will have happened in a few days.

[Ckappe]

I’ve already posted text from various FSF publications above addressing most of this, but once more into the fray.

HGM is correct. The only party with standing to address the violations is the copyright holder. If there is something wrong with the product, then you are also correct, but those are two different issues.

Once ChessBase addresses any violations and distributes the binary and the net separately under different licenses, then the freedoms above are not infringed.

I think we are confusing different subjects.. a) is it legal for CB to not supply source for the executables they already distributed with GPLv3 code used, citing they don't "own" all parts of the source they used to build together with GPLv3 code b) Can these in what it looks like from an outsider obvious violations by CB be enforced at all legally c) is it worth the legal hassles for the copyright holders? d) consumer rights and consumer laws. These are completely different discussions imop. But regardless I think a large part of the computer chess community agrees that charging 100 euro for Stockfish + a home-brew network under another name than Stockfish is morally upsetting, regardless of legal standing.

[connor_mcmonigle]

Who do you propose is the third party license holder in this situation? If both the distributor and the license holder are the same legal entity (ChessBase), then how does this argument work? If you distribute a software to me with a GPL license and you hold a component of that software with another license, you've effectively just relicensed said component, no? You can't just "pull the rug out from under my feet" so to speak, right?

But let’s assume that it belongs to ChessBase. The FSF’s own FAQ and explanatory text details the steps you would have to take and the legal text you would have to write to distribute your proprietary software or data in a GPL work. It doesn’t magically happen when you distribute a binary. That binary is then a dud that no one can distribute.

"It doesn’t magically happen when you distribute a binary"

Yes, but doesn't this happen when ChessBase distributes the binary with the GPL license attached (which ChessBase is doing, afaik)? If I were to sell you some software with a GPL license (and I am the copyright holder of a component of that software and the other components are all GPL licensed), then have I not just licensed my component under the GPL?

All a copyright holder must do to license/re-license their software is attach some license text to it, correct?

As the copyright holder, ChessBase is, of course, free to re-license the component as they please. However, those having already received the component with a GPL license are still afforded all the freedoms provided by the GPL.

(This is not nearly so simple if a different entity holds the copyright on the component, of course.)

[dkappe]

"It doesn’t magically happen when you distribute a binary"

Yes, but doesn't this happen when ChessBase distributes the binary with the GPL license attached (which ChessBase is doing, afaik)? If I were to sell you some software with a GPL license (and I am the copyright holder of a component of that software and the other components are all GPL licensed), then have I not just licensed my component under the GPL?

All a copyright holder must do to license/re-license their software is attach some license text to it, correct?

As the copyright holder, ChessBase is, of course, free to re-license the component as they please. However, those having already received the component with a GPL license are still afforded all the freedoms provided by the GPL.

(This is not nearly so simple if a different entity holds the copyright on the component, of course.)

I don’t have FF2 so don’t know what their package looks like. Typically in open source projects there is a LICENSE file and, crucially, text about the license in each source file. The net files don’t have any place to affix licensing terms, except the name, I guess, but providing a license file alongside should be sufficient. See the various Creative Commons licenses for info on how it’s done. If you want to go into court to argue that one bit of license text supersedes another even without the owners explicit intent, be my guest.

[Ckappe]

I don’t have FF2 so don’t know what their package looks like. Typically in open source projects there is a LICENSE file and, crucially, text about the license in each source file. The net files don’t have any place to affix licensing terms, except the name, I guess, but providing a license file alongside should be sufficient. See the various Creative Commons licenses for info on how it’s done. If you want to go into court to argue that one bit of license text supersedes another even without the owners explicit intent, be my guest.

Your main (persistent) argument without even knowing the details of what CB actually distributed and currently distributes, seems to be that the infringement when distributing a Stockfish binary executable with "secret" components included, refusing to release these parts under GPLv3, and only later release this component as a separate licensed "product" with separate license, are "hard" to legally pursue in court? Does this qualify as a quick summary of your numerous lengthy posts here?

[dkappe]

Your main (persistent) argument without even knowing the details of what CB actually distributed and currently distributes, seems to be that the infringement when distributing a Stockfish binary executable with "secret" components included, refusing to release these parts under GPLv3, and only later release this component as a separate licensed "product" with separate license, are "hard" to legally pursue in court? Does this qualify as a quick summary of your numerous lengthy posts here?

Nope. My argument (and that of the FSF if people will bother to read their various explanations) is that you can’t combine things (source, data, whatever) with incompatible licenses and legally distribute or convey them. Full stop. No “and then all the goodies are suddenly under the GPL or the public domain.” Thats it.

[Ckappe]

...you can’t combine things (source, data, whatever) with incompatible licenses and legally distribute or convey them. Full stop.

Thanks for the clarification of your view

And thus the simple conclusion must be that if CB, combined things (source, data, whatever) with incompatible licenses they were not legal and in breach of 1 or perhaps both licenses. Or they/CB distributed things with compatible license rights acquired for the distribution, then still would be illegal / non-compliant with stockfish GPL if denying the complete source of the binaries sold.

[Dann Corbit]

CEGT have published their updated lists now, and have both Stockfish and Fat Fritz 2 on their "Best Versions" list. So they are treating them as separate entities as well.

http://www.cegt.net/40_40%20Rating%20Li ... liste.html

Well them , you are both being misleading in your ratings. Two wrongs don't make a right. The code is is in excess 99.9% Stockfish, with the only different being the Net, Which is like having a different evaluate function.

My question is, is there an undisclosed conflict of interest. Did everyone at CCRL pay for their version of Stockfish-FF2 ? If you received a gratuitous copy, of FF2, then CCRL waas basically bribed to show it as separate. Be careful how you answer, the truth always has a way of coming out.

If anyone of you received a copy of FF2 without paying for you, CCRL is lacking independence.

C'mon Mike, that is a meany. I myself got sponsored long time ago with some Nvidia GPUs, yet my engine is OpenCL not CUDA.

--
Srdja

I have previously made requests of engine writers to send free copies of their engines to testing bodies so that I could see how strong their engines are. And they usually did it,

[Dann Corbit]

Your main (persistent) argument without even knowing the details of what CB actually distributed and currently distributes, seems to be that the infringement when distributing a Stockfish binary executable with "secret" components included, refusing to release these parts under GPLv3, and only later release this component as a separate licensed "product" with separate license, are "hard" to legally pursue in court? Does this qualify as a quick summary of your numerous lengthy posts here?

Nope. My argument (and that of the FSF if people will bother to read their various explanations) is that you can’t combine things (source, data, whatever) with incompatible licenses and legally distribute or convey them. Full stop. No “and then all the goodies are suddenly under the GPL or the public domain.” Thats it.

So Oracle cannot sell both the Oracle and MySQL database systems then? You had better send them a note and inform them that they are breaking the law. Or is it only naughty if they sell them to the same customer at the same time?

Law is a complicated thing and it changes from country to country. I guess that there are no software legal experts in this forum (including me of course) and so we are all like the armchair quarterbacks, dissecting the game on Monday but without the real understanding to know what we are doing.

IMO-YMMV

Another thing, it is necessary to separate what we don't like from something that is illegal. I may not like something, but that does not make it illegal.

[dkappe]

So Oracle cannot sell both the Oracle and MySQL database systems then? You had better send them a note and inform them that they are breaking the law. Or is it only naughty if they sell them to the same customer at the same time?

If they are selling them as separate products under separate licenses, how is that relevant?