Michel wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 8:48 pmI was confused by this as well but the way it was explained to me is that the GPL just states conditions under which GPLed software can be distributed. If none of these conditions are satisfied then you simply cannot distribute it. I assume that this is a standard feature of copyright law.
By reading more of your posts I realised we agree very much on the "aggregate" section.
But I don't see where the GPL, which gives me the right to distribute SF, states that I cannot do so as part of a "non-aggregate" compilation. (It is different if SF is combined with the other parts to become one "work", but I don't see that happening if SF and the NNUE net are combined in one zip file, for example. If they would form one "work", then that work is protected by SF's copyright (and by the copyright on the NNUE net, if any).)
If you don't meet the terms of an aggregate as the GPL defines it, then you have to adhere to the other terms of the GPL. This says that anything combined (ie, it ain't a mere aggregate) with GPL'd software - which we'll call FOO - must itself - which we'll call BAR - be licensed in a GPL compatible way. Some of those other terms include agreeing to distribute source code of your own copyrighted work BAR back to the copyright holders of FOO and license them to do with BAR what they've licensed you to do with FOO. This is why the GPL is often described as a share-and-share-alike license.
But the GPL does not automatically attach itself from FOO to BAR. If the owners of BAR refuse to release BAR in a GPL-compatible way and a judge finds that they have not met the terms of the GPL, then the result would be that the owners of BAR will not be allowed to distribute, copy, modify FOO. It isn't like the judge is going to say that the owners of FOO now get to do what they want with BAR.
gonzochess75 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 8:57 pm
That's essentially what the GPL is doing. It has a definition of aggregate vs combined work. If you don't meet its definition of aggregate, then you don't get to distribute the work covered by the GPL unless you adhere to its terms. You get to choose whether you want to meet those terms or not. However, if you don't then you have no rights to the work in question.
Where does it say that if you don't meet its definition of aggregate, then you don't get to distribute the GPL-protected work? I don't see it. Am I overlooking it?
This is what gives me permission (in combination with the next section):
You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date.
b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released under this License and any conditions added under section 7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to “keep intact all notices”.
c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.
d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so.
I guess the relevant condition is c). But c) merely requires me to distribute "the whole of the work". What is a "work" is defined by copyright law. SF and an NNUE net zipped together are two works, not one.
gonzochess75 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 8:57 pm
That's essentially what the GPL is doing. It has a definition of aggregate vs combined work. If you don't meet its definition of aggregate, then you don't get to distribute the work covered by the GPL unless you adhere to its terms. You get to choose whether you want to meet those terms or not. However, if you don't then you have no rights to the work in question.
Where does it say that if you don't meet its definition of aggregate, then you don't get to distribute the GPL-protected work? I don't see it. Am I overlooking it?
It doesn't say that you don't get to distribute GPL-protected work if you don't meet the definition of aggregate. Rather it says that if you don't meet the definition of aggregate and you still want to distribute the GPL-protected work, then you must meet the following terms and conditions... one of them being that you agree to license your work in a GPL-compatible way back to the owners of the original GPL-protected work. You don't have to agree! But if you don't, that's when you lose any right to distribute the GPL protected work.
The copyright rights are reserved by the copyright owner. If you don't meet the copyright owners terms, then you simply have no rights to copy, modify, distribute the work.
syzygy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:06 pm
I guess the relevant condition is c). But c) merely requires me to distribute "the whole of the work". What is a "work" is defined by copyright law. SF and an NNUE net zipped together are two works, not one.
No, because the section defines what the GPL means when it says "combined work" aka "the whole of the work." It means anything that does not meet the definition of mere "aggregate". It is not relying upon the statutory definition of "derived work." It is relying upon its own definition which was spelled out in that very section.
5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.
You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
a) The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date.
b) The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released under this License and any conditions added under section 7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to “keep intact all notices”. c) You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.
d) If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so.
A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.
syzygy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:06 pm... What is a "work" is defined by copyright law. SF and an NNUE net zipped together are two works, not one.
This is I think where we part ways and the fundamental disagreement that we're arguing over. The GPL explicitly defines what it means by a combined work as anything not meeting the definition of mere "aggregate." And the definition of mere "aggregate" is given as that, "...which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program." This is a straightforward reading of the text.
gonzochess75 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:08 pm
It doesn't say that you don't get to distribute GPL-protected work if you don't meet the definition of aggregate. Rather it says that if you don't meet the definition of aggregate and you still want to distribute the GPL-protected work, then you must meet the following terms and conditions... one of them being that you agree to license your work in a GPL-compatible way back to the owners of the original GPL-protected work. You don't have to agree! But if you don't, that's when you lose any right to distribute the GPL protected work.
What specific text are you basing that on? Please quote.
gonzochess75 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:08 pm
It doesn't say that you don't get to distribute GPL-protected work if you don't meet the definition of aggregate. Rather it says that if you don't meet the definition of aggregate and you still want to distribute the GPL-protected work, then you must meet the following terms and conditions... one of them being that you agree to license your work in a GPL-compatible way back to the owners of the original GPL-protected work. You don't have to agree! But if you don't, that's when you lose any right to distribute the GPL protected work.
What specific text are you basing that on? Please quote.
edit: OK, I should have read on.
There is more relevant language if this helps:
2. Basic Permissions.
...
Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under the conditions stated below. Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10 makes it unnecessary.
... 8. Termination. You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).
...
syzygy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:06 pm... What is a "work" is defined by copyright law. SF and an NNUE net zipped together are two works, not one.
This is I think where we part ways and the fundamental disagreement that we're arguing over. The GPL explicitly defines what it means by a combined work as anything not meeting the definition of mere "aggregate."
I still don't see where it does that. Condition c) does not mention "aggregate". Nor does it say that it applies to a "compilation" that include the Program or a work based on it.
Condition c), to make sense at all, necessarily must use "work" in the sense in which it is used in copyright law, since otherwise it would be ridiculous to state that "This License will therefore apply, ..., to the whole work, and all its parts". The license on SF ("This License") cannot apply to the NNUE net if the NNUE net is not part of the same "work" as the modified SF. Zipping them together does not make them part of the same "work".
The other text you cited doesn't impose any extra conditions beyond a), b), c) and d).
syzygy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:06 pm... What is a "work" is defined by copyright law. SF and an NNUE net zipped together are two works, not one.
This is I think where we part ways and the fundamental disagreement that we're arguing over. The GPL explicitly defines what it means by a combined work as anything not meeting the definition of mere "aggregate."
I still don't see where it does that. Condition c) does not mention "aggregate". Nor does it say that it applies to a "compilation" that include the Program or a work based on it.
Condition c), to make sense at all, necessarily must use "work" in the sense in which it is used in copyright law, since otherwise it would be ridiculous to state that "This License will therefore apply, ..., to the whole work, and all its parts". The license on SF ("This License") cannot apply to the NNUE net if the NNUE net is not part of the same "work" as the modified SF. Zipping them together does not make them part of the same "work".
Do you believe the NNUE weights are:
"by their nature extensions of the covered work"
or
"combined with it such as to form a larger program"
Where the weights are distributed with a GPL'd engine regardless the packaging?
syzygy wrote: ↑Fri Feb 26, 2021 9:06 pm... What is a "work" is defined by copyright law. SF and an NNUE net zipped together are two works, not one.
This is I think where we part ways and the fundamental disagreement that we're arguing over. The GPL explicitly defines what it means by a combined work as anything not meeting the definition of mere "aggregate."
I still don't see where it does that. Condition c) does not mention "aggregate". Nor does it say that it applies to a "compilation" that include the Program or a work based on it.
Condition c), to make sense at all, necessarily must use "work" in the sense in which it is used in copyright law, since otherwise it would be ridiculous to state that "This License will therefore apply, ..., to the whole work, and all its parts". The license on SF ("This License") cannot apply to the NNUE net if the NNUE net is not part of the same "work" as the modified SF. Zipping them together does not make them part of the same "work".
The other text you cited doesn't impose any extra conditions beyond a), b), c) and d).
As I understand it when they say “This License will therefore apply, ..., to the whole work, and all its parts” is that if this conflicts with the licence of one of the parts you cannot distribute.
Ideas=science. Simplification=engineering.
Without ideas there is nothing to simplify.