Stockfish vs ChessBase hearing a “meh” affair

[CornfedForever]

For some reason I am reminded of an incident at my local chess club about 20 yrs ago...

I walked up upon two weak players going over a game they had played. I just watched...holding my tongue. A local master friend came up beside me at one point and watched for a moment...not saying anything.

He motioned for us to go elsewhere and walking away said "Kind of like watching two monkeys examine the workings of a watch, isn't it?".

One or two people are making good points in this tread...the rest are handwaving.

[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.

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.

Although I doubt whether they (unknowingly) did it, it is irrelevant. Whatever "license" they believed to have that gave them the rights to distribute Houdini is invalid, and under GPL, they are clearly made aware of the violation. Proof of continued violation can be established post curing period due to the fact that to this day, their Houdini distribution is still not GPL-compliant, now that's a criminal offense. You don't need a court to terminate GPL, BTW.

[AndrewGrant]

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.

Who exactly is "we" in this statement?

[dkappe]

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.

Who exactly is "we" in this statement?

You exhaust me. Go back and read the thread.

[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.

Although I doubt whether they (unknowingly) did it, it is irrelevant. Whatever "license" they believed to have that gave them the rights to distribute Houdini is invalid, and under GPL, they are clearly made aware of the violation. Proof of continued violation can be established post curing period due to the fact that to this day, their Houdini distribution is still not GPL-compliant, now that's a criminal offense. You don't need a court to terminate GPL, BTW.

Is Chessbase still selling an SF-derived Houdini? Their website does not seem to show it, but maybe I am looking in the wrong place.

[Graham Banks]

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.

Although I doubt whether they (unknowingly) did it, it is irrelevant. Whatever "license" they believed to have that gave them the rights to distribute Houdini is invalid, and under GPL, they are clearly made aware of the violation. Proof of continued violation can be established post curing period due to the fact that to this day, their Houdini distribution is still not GPL-compliant, now that's a criminal offense. You don't need a court to terminate GPL, BTW.

Is Chessbase still selling an SF-derived Houdini? Their website does not seem to show it, but maybe I am looking in the wrong place.

https://shop.chessbase.com/en/categories/chessprogramms

[Ovyron]

One or two people are making good points in this tread...the rest are handwaving.

Please tell us who are the ones making good points so we are informed!

[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.

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.

Although I doubt whether they (unknowingly) did it, it is irrelevant. Whatever "license" they believed to have that gave them the rights to distribute Houdini is invalid, and under GPL, they are clearly made aware of the violation. Proof of continued violation can be established post curing period due to the fact that to this day, their Houdini distribution is still not GPL-compliant, now that's a criminal offense. You don't need a court to terminate GPL, BTW.

Is Chessbase still selling an SF-derived Houdini? Their website does not seem to show it, but maybe I am looking in the wrong place.

From whoever was present in the hearing, I believe the impression was that the court does not seem to have any problem with plaintiffs establishing their facts, but more of a confusion on whether this GPL termination is "permanent" permanent, like if some future SF is completely rewritten without any code from the plaintiffs, is that still considered a derivative work and the termination is still in effect, I think that's a reasonable argument and in my opinion a practical solution without bothering the court would be that CB to refrain from distributing any SF and sell their own Fritz. What really is so important that CB must distribute SF anyways? It seems to contradict their narrative of originality at least. Note that in any case their use of the software is not prohibited as well as anyone who get the engine themselves.

[AndrewGrant]

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.

Who exactly is "we" in this statement?

You exhaust me. Go back and read the thread.

Ok so by "we" you meant that you agreed with Ronald's comments.

[Sopel]

1. We’ve established that the Houdini “violation” was not a violation by ChessBase

Who established that?

edit. report on discord from someone who was present in person (emphasis mine)

[2:03 PM] markus: main takeaways for me:
1. one person from the project is sufficient to terminate the license. its not something that all 200 contributors need to do together.
2. ignorance is no excuse. chessbase shouldve investigated houdini 6 themselves.
3. restrictions might not apply for future versions. if chessbase rips off sf15 then there needs to be another lawsuit (idk if the judge understood versioning...)
4. no real reprucussions for chessbase

with 3. and 4. being not finalized and worked on