Stockfish vs ChessBase hearing a “meh” affair

[dkappe]

Again, 1. whether the NN file is copyrightable or not is irrelevant because in FF2 it was part of the binary therefore required as a corresponding source. 2. Curing previous violations doesn't prevent license termination under section 8. 3. The way houdini was distributed to chessbase doesn't matter, the judge said it's chessbase's diligence to verify legality of their distribution.

Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.

Sorry, not true. Also, it’s possible the judge was mistaken and will correct herself. Between you, me and syzygy, I’ll defer to the one with a law degree.

[syzygy]

Again, 1. whether the NN file is copyrightable or not is irrelevant because in FF2 it was part of the binary therefore required as a corresponding source.

Only for a short time, as far as I understand.

2. Curing previous violations doesn't prevent license termination under section 8.

What do you base that on? Merely on the text of section 8? A German court is unlikely to read the GPL in a binary manner.

In addition, it is an interesting question whether the GPLv3 license can be terminated by only some of the copyright holders. I very strongly doubt this. If a company violates the GPL on a program, then any copyright holder can take legal action, but that does not mean that any single copyright holder can unilaterally, i.e. without the consent of all the other copyright holders, terminate the license for that company even after it has ceased the violation. Otherwise it would be terribly dangerous for companies to rely on open source projects. One mistake and a developer that bears a grudge against it would be enough to lose the license.

The text of section 8 does suggest that "a particular copyright holder" can terminate, but for the sake of the GPL itself I would hope that courts take a more reasonable approach. Otherwise companies have no choice but to step away from such a dangerous license.

3. The way houdini was distributed to chessbase doesn't matter, the judge said it's chessbase's diligence to verify legality of their distribution.

But there is only so much they can do, and I do not believe they are required to check the source code if there was no reason to doubt Houdart.

More importantly, there is no way that CB violated the GPLv3 license in that case. Houdart did not give it to them under the GPLv3, and CB did not sell it under the GPLv3. GPLv3 played no role there.

[syzygy]

Again, 1. whether the NN file is copyrightable or not is irrelevant because in FF2 it was part of the binary therefore required as a corresponding source.

Only for a short time, as far as I understand.

But I agree that copyrightability of the NN is not relevant to the question whether CB violated the GPLv3 on SF by releasing the modified sources without also releasing the NN.

For the question whether this was a GPLv3 violation, in my view it is relevant whether or not the NN was part of the FF2 executable. (And as I understand, at first it was, and later it was not.)

Btw, CB could argue that they released both the modified sources and the NN to anyone who bought a copy of FF2, which is sufficient to comply with the GPLv3. This argument only works from the moment they separated the NN from the executable. But I suppose CB told buyers that they were not allowed to distribute the NN...

[noobpwnftw]

More importantly, there is no way that CB violated the GPLv3 license in that case. Houdart did not give it to them under the GPLv3, and CB did not sell it under the GPLv3. GPLv3 played no role there.

This is as funny as justifying selling whatever you downloaded from torrents, whoever gave you those did not have a licence attached, so you are free to sell them and take no responsibility. You should definitely try.

Correcting a violation does not make it never happened, as far as the condition for termination is concerned. Maybe somewhere on earth you can steal something from a store, get caught and put them back the next day and free yourself from any consequences. I wonder where that place is.

[Ovyron]

To be clear, the FF2 on github is distributed with a NN, so it is functional.

So that makes it easier to decide 1) in favour of CB.

But the NN they distributed on github it's not the same one they sold to people, to add insult to injury they made some people think it's the same NN.

[syzygy]

More importantly, there is no way that CB violated the GPLv3 license in that case. Houdart did not give it to them under the GPLv3, and CB did not sell it under the GPLv3. GPLv3 played no role there.

This is as funny as justifying selling whatever you downloaded from torrents, whoever gave you those did not have a licence attached, so you are free to sell them and take no responsibility. You should definitely try.

Copyright infringement is not the same as a license violation.

CB (unknowingly) infringed the copyright on SF by distributing an SF-derived Houdini.
But there is no way that CB was somehow bound by the terms of the GPL, as I explained.

[Sopel]

Again, 1. whether the NN file is copyrightable or not is irrelevant because in FF2 it was part of the binary therefore required as a corresponding source. 2. Curing previous violations doesn't prevent license termination under section 8. 3. The way houdini was distributed to chessbase doesn't matter, the judge said it's chessbase's diligence to verify legality of their distribution.

Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.

Sorry, not true. Also, it’s possible the judge was mistaken and will correct herself. Between you, me and syzygy, I’ll defer to the one with a law degree.

Either you misinterpret "permanently" or I don't see why this excerpt is in any way relevent to what I wrote.

[AndrewGrant]

Again, 1. whether the NN file is copyrightable or not is irrelevant because in FF2 it was part of the binary therefore required as a corresponding source. 2. Curing previous violations doesn't prevent license termination under section 8. 3. The way houdini was distributed to chessbase doesn't matter, the judge said it's chessbase's diligence to verify legality of their distribution.

Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.

Sorry, not true. Also, it’s possible the judge was mistaken and will correct herself. Between you, me and syzygy, I’ll defer to the one with a law degree.

Either you misinterpret "permanently" or I don't see why this excerpt is in any way relevent to what I wrote.

"first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder"

[dkappe]

Again, 1. whether the NN file is copyrightable or not is irrelevant because in FF2 it was part of the binary therefore required as a corresponding source. 2. Curing previous violations doesn't prevent license termination under section 8. 3. The way houdini was distributed to chessbase doesn't matter, the judge said it's chessbase's diligence to verify legality of their distribution.

Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.

Sorry, not true. Also, it’s possible the judge was mistaken and will correct herself. Between you, me and syzygy, I’ll defer to the one with a law degree.

Either you misinterpret "permanently" or I don't see why this excerpt is in any way relevent to what I wrote.

"first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder"

This goes round and round without Andy, Noob or Sopel learning from their mistakes. So, once more, hoping that this time the penny will drop:

1. We’ve established that the Houdini “violation” was not a violation by ChessBase, not withstanding Noob’s “you lawyers be so crazy” primal scream.
2. The packaging of the binary and net was a violation which was “cured” within the timeframe specified in the GPLv3.

So by my count that’s one cured violation. Do you have a different count?

[Rebel]

This goes round and round without Andy, Noob or Sopel learning from their mistakes. So, once more, hoping that this time the penny will drop:

1. We’ve established that the Houdini “violation” was not a violation by ChessBase, not withstanding Noob’s “you lawyers be so crazy” primal scream.
2. The packaging of the binary and net was a violation which was “cured” within the timeframe specified in the GPLv3.

So by my count that’s one cured violation. Do you have a different count?

Although we don't know what exactly is in the subpoena I tend to agree with you. Nevertheless in court you never know. Another scenario would be, they met in person, decided to talk afterwards, outcome a win/win situation: Fritz 19 will be a closed SF source code. Everybody happy.