Are neural nets (the weights file) copyrightable?

[syzygy]

So distributing a Stockfish executable compiled for Windows would require you to provide GPL'd sources for the Microsoft Windows dlls it links to. That seems tricky...

That would be tricky! Hence the system library exception

Yes, I already corrected myself.

But this exception is quite arbitrary. As long as I create a machine that includes the necessary code that I choose to refer to as "system libraries", I can distribute modified GPL'd programs that link to that code.

And then the plaintiffs call in an expert to ask if your libFoo is really a system library and what does "system library" really mean and the reasonably intelligent judge laughs at you at best and cites you with contempt at worst

Nah, I just give my system a weird name like Ybox.

[gonzochess75]

Of course it does.
You said that data is code.

This is a well known theoretical computer science question. A lot of people said that Lisp proved that data is code. However, they don't know their history. The lambda calculus proves it. Of course Turing aficionados would say that Turing proved it.

Therefore, anyone who asks for the data must be given that data.

You are misunderstanding me.

Whether data is copyrightable or not is also irrelevant to the embedding argument.
If I embed a copyright movie into a GPL program does that void the copyright?

...

I think the meaning of the license is clear. The FSF wants to guarantee availability of the program's code. Not the program's data.
I think that you do not like what Albert did, and so you are trying to twist the meaning of what they wrote into "source code + data"

Not only do I think that is not what was intended, but if (indeed) that is what was intended, nobody would use GPL software.

Is the movie by its "nature extensions of the covered work"? Where the covered work is a GPL program?
Is the movie "combined with it such as to form a larger program?"

If so, then yes the movie would need to be released under a GPL compatible license.

With regards to my motivation purportedly only seeking to hurt Albert... no, I sincerely believe this. As do apparently a number of other people on this forum. I've told the same to my partner in AllieStein long long ago... that I don't believe the network weights file are copyrightable and if they were then they'd have to be licensed under the GPL to work with Allie. I've also told Andrew Grant the same thing when he asked my advice about Ethereal and NNUE weights files. You can ask them!

Finally, it seems crem, one of the top developers of Lc0 also has this same interpretation. I would not be surprised if a number of other engine developers of both the NNUE and Lc0/Ankan backend variety believe the same. Maybe we can get a poll going.

[Dann Corbit]

Using a poll to decide on facts is like the Indiana state legislature voting on the value of pi.
But poll away if you like.

[gonzochess75]

- when distributing an SF executable that is modified to load the FF2 NNUE net (and many other nets with the same format), both the executable and the net file specifically intended to act as an extension of and be combined with SF must be released under the GPLv3. It is fine to include the FF2 NNUE net in the same zip file provided it is also licensed in a GPL-compatible manner.

And the FF2 NNUE net and not any other NNUE net because we know that that was the plan all along, I suppose?

Obviously it would be fine for anyone else to distribute a non-GPL NNUE net that is compatible with SF13, or with FF2-SF for that matter. (Still assuming that NNUE nets are copyrightable.)

Not just the FF2 net. Any net that is distributed with SF for the express purpose of being used by SF as an NN weights file. Same is true of Lc0 and Allie as I just said to Dann. These weights files - if they are copyrightable - are by their nature extensions of and combined with GPL'd engines to form a larger work. Hence they need to be licensed in a GPL compatible way.

Note: this doesn't mean NNUE nets or Lc0 nets are automatically GPL'd. I think what Komodo/Dragon is doing is fine. They released a proprietary net to go along with a proprietary engine.

If makers of these nets want a non-GPL'd engine to use them with, then they should do the work and write one!

[Dann Corbit]

If a GPL program reads movies from a database into its memory, do the movies become GPL?
Is it otherwise somehow illegal to read these movies into RAM using a GPL program because you are voiding their license?

[gonzochess75]

Using a poll to decide on facts is like the Indiana state legislature voting on the value of pi.
But poll away if you like.

You said, "I think that you do not like what Albert did, and so you are trying to twist the meaning of what they wrote into "source code + data" which I contend is absolutely false. I'm pointing out that my POV is not in fact manufactured for Albert, but existed long before FF2 and that many others have the exact same POV. Hence the poll.

[gonzochess75]

If a GPL program reads movies from a database into its memory, do the movies become GPL?
Is it otherwise somehow illegal to read these movies into RAM using a GPL program because you are voiding their license?

Are the movies read into RAM by their nature extensions of the covered work? Are they being combined with the covered work to form a larger program?

Notice the pattern...

[Dann Corbit]

I want to make it clear that I do not know if a weights file is copyrightable or not.
I am not at all sure either way on that particular thing.
But I am sure that data is not part of the source code.

It is possible that I misunderstood your motivation. But I find it very, very strange that someone who knows some computer science pretends that source code means "source code + data" unless they are trying to twist something to their own ends. And without some sort of motivation I do not know why someone would do that.

So my question is, "Why are you doing that?"

[Dann Corbit]

If a GPL program reads movies from a database into its memory, do the movies become GPL?
Is it otherwise somehow illegal to read these movies into RAM using a GPL program because you are voiding their license?

Are the movies read into RAM by their nature extensions of the covered work? Are they being combined with the covered work to form a larger program?

Notice the pattern...

If data is code (as you clearly stated in a previous argument) then yes, and yes.

[Alayan]

As I understand it you cannot distribute a GPL'ed program unless you abide by its license (obviously). The GPL prohibits distributing a GPL'ed program together with a program which does have a GPL incompatible license if the two together constitute a modification of the original program (so that the precise aggregation exception does not apply).

So ChessBase can obviously distribute the NNUE net under a non-freely distributable license (assuming this is possible for a NN), but it cannot distribute it with SF as a unit, since this goes against the license of SF.

I agree, I have come to this conclusion too.

By this standard, Chessbase is still violating the copyright of Stockfish authors.

Can Disney tell ViacomCBS that they can redistribute Star Wars all they want in exchange for ViacomCBS granting Disney the right to redistribute Star Trek?

Can that deal be made?

If ViacomCBS refuses and says that's unfair since Star Trek is not a derivative work of Star Wars does that mean that ViacomCBS some how automatically gets the right to distribute Star Wars?

This has been ignored, but makes the point very eloquently.