Fat Fritz 2

[dkappe]

5. not sticking to the spirit of the open source license

I'm Graham. I've made a new net for open-source SF, I'm charging €99, and I'm not sharing this new net.

The spirit? First, SF’s own nets are distributed under a different license than SF itself. Next, from the GPL FAQ:

Q: Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?

Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

Q: Is there some way that I can GPL the output people get from use of my program? For example, if my program is used to develop hardware designs, can I require that these designs must be free?

In general this is legally impossible; copyright law does not give you any say in the use of the output people make from their data using your program. If the user uses your program to enter or convert her own data, the copyright on the output belongs to her, not you. More generally, when a program translates its input into some other form, the copyright status of the output inherits that of the input it was generated from.

So the only way you have a say in the use of the output is if substantial parts of the output are copied (more or less) from text in your program. For instance, part of the output of Bison (see above) would be covered by the GNU GPL, if we had not made an exception in this specific case.

You could artificially make a program copy certain text into its output even if there is no technical reason to do so. But if that copied text serves no practical purpose, the user could simply delete that text from the output and use only the rest. Then he would not have to obey the conditions on redistribution of the copied text.

Q: If a programming language interpreter is released under the GPL, does that mean programs written to be interpreted by it must be under GPL-compatible licenses?

When the interpreter just interprets a language, the answer is no. The interpreted program, to the interpreter, is just data; a free software license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit what data you use the interpreter on. You can run it on any data (interpreted program), any way you like, and there are no requirements about licensing that data to anyone.

However, when the interpreter is extended to provide “bindings” to other facilities (often, but not necessarily, libraries), the interpreted program is effectively linked to the facilities it uses through these bindings. So if these facilities are released under the GPL, the interpreted program that uses them must be released in a GPL-compatible way. The JNI or Java Native Interface is an example of such a binding mechanism; libraries that are accessed in this way are linked dynamically with the Java programs that call them. These libraries are also linked with the interpreter. If the interpreter is linked statically with these libraries, or if it is designed to link dynamically with these specific libraries, then it too needs to be released in a GPL-compatible way.

Another similar and very common case is to provide libraries with the interpreter which are themselves interpreted. For instance, Perl comes with many Perl modules, and a Java implementation comes with many Java classes. These libraries and the programs that call them are always dynamically linked together.

A consequence is that if you choose to use GPLed Perl modules or Java classes in your program, you must release the program in a GPL-compatible way, regardless of the license used in the Perl or Java interpreter that the combined Perl or Java program will run on.

So, errr, no. If you didn’t want someone to distribute SF and a proprietary net, you shouldn’t have used the GPL. There are licenses that do this, but not the GPL.

[glennsamuel32]

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.

Excellent post Mike !!
I never did trust these rating sites in any case

[dkappe]

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.

Excellent post Mike !!
I never did trust these rating sites in any case

I should disclose that both CCRL and CEGT received a gratuitous copy of Toga III from me. Gratuitous in that it was “unnecessary, uncalled for, inappropriate.” Then I pestered them to test it. Clearly a conflict of interest.

[Ckappe]

As far as I have followed the GPL discussion there is no doubt that a network distributed as part of the binaries is subject to the GPL license.

So the current Fat Friz network should be part of GPLv3 already even if they now at a later stage break it out as a separate file (as it was embedded in first distribution of software). We could hypothesize all we like what the situation would have been if the network had never been released as part of the GPLv3. But as things stand now it seems CB is trying to retract the GPLv3 they provided in binary by separating the network outside the executable.

The big question for buyers of Fat Fritz 2 would be if they have paid 99 euros for a single net or if this should be considered a "subscription" of future nets as well, very unclear in the terms of sale.

[dkappe]

As far as I have followed the GPL discussion there is no doubt that a network distributed as part of the binaries is subject to the GPL license.

Subject to it? Yes, in that the work has conflicting licenses and cannot be distributed, by ChessBase or anyone else. Why does the GPLv3 have supremacy over the ChessBase onerous Bigfoot license? You like it better?

So the current Fat Friz network should be part of GPLv3 already even if they now at a later stage break it out as a separate file (as it was embedded in first distribution of software). We could hypothesize all we like what the situation would have been if the network had never been released as part of the GPLv3. But as things stand now it seems CB is trying to retract the GPLv3 they provided in binary by separating the network outside the executable.

The big question for buyers of Fat Fritz 2 would be if they have paid 99 euros for a single net or if this should be considered a "subscription" of future nets as well, very unclear in the terms of sale.

You need to read the various publications by the FSF on the GPLv3. Google is your friend.

GPLv3 offers a reprieve for good behavior: if you violate the license, you'll get your rights back once you stop the violation, unless a copyright holder contacts you within 60 days. After you receive such a notice, you can have your rights fully restored if you're a first-time violator and correct the violation within 30 days. Otherwise, you can work out the issue on a case-by-case basis with the copyright holders who contacted you, and your rights will be restored afterward.

Has a copyright holder contacted ChessBase? If so it looks like their correction is well within the 30 days. If no one has contacted them then the clock never started running.

[MikeB]

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.

Excellent post Mike !!
I never did trust these rating sites in any case

I should disclose that both CCRL and CEGT received a gratuitous copy of Toga III from me. Gratuitous in that it was “unnecessary, uncalled for, inappropriate.” Then I pestered them to test it. Clearly a conflict of interest.

LOL - I'm not worried about you my friend ...

[Ckappe]

Has a copyright holder contacted ChessBase? If so it looks like their correction is well within the 30 days. If no one has contacted them then the clock never started running.

Are you claiming no customer currently has the exe with embedded bin and could not ask for the source of that and have no rights re-distribute all the included parts of that build? And that the customer has forfeited this right to the source after 30 days???

I guess I just have to Google more, I am more of an ethics-guy than a sneaky lawyer, trying to find loopholes

[dkappe]

Has a copyright holder contacted ChessBase? If so it looks like their correction is well within the 30 days. If no one has contacted them then the clock never started running.

Are you claiming no customer currently has the exe with embedded bin and could not ask for the source of that and have no rights re-distribute all the included parts of that build? And that the customer has forfeited this right to the source after 30 days???

I guess I just have to Google more, I am more of an ethics-guy than a sneaky lawyer, trying to find loopholes

I have no idea who has the ChessBase product and in what form. If there is a violation and the copyright holder notifies ChessBase, they then have 30 days to correct the violation.

Now if you, for example, have a binary with the GPLv3 license on Stockfish and the conflicting license on the FF2 network (I assume it’s conflicting for argument’s sake), then it can’t be distributed. The GPLv3 doesn’t supersede the ChessBase license just as the ChessBase license doesn’t supersede the GPLv3 and make SF the property of ChessBase. It’s a dead letter. Turf it and either ask for your money back or ask ChessBase for a version that complies with both licenses.

[hgm]

Customers can ask all they want, and ChessBase can happily ignore their requests. Only the copyright holder has any legal standing in this.

[Ckappe]

It is not funny and they should be doing the right thing. Due to my background as an auditor ,I am a professional skeptic, when something just doesn't add up, you have to ask questions.



Shashin and SugaR have far more changes to Stockfish than FF2. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation why FF2 should be treated differently than Shashin and Sugar. It doesn't add up, so I'm asking the question. As , FYI, I go further back in computer chess than you do and when I see a wrong I am not going to be quiet. Whether if FF2 is legal, I'm not a lawyer. But you don't have to be a lawyer to know this whole setup stinks to high heavens. And now you have two rating lists, that are calling a nearly 100% clone a different engine for rating purposes - an engine that has profit motive - you have to ask questions, Why ? To me , they appear to be in bed in together and if you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. This is an outrage. I'm not really interested in people opinions who choose to stick their head in the sand because they are simply thankful. You are simply a taker - what have you contributed to the computer chess community. Meanwhile there are hundreds of developers who contributed to SF and now see Chessbase SF making a buck on the work they did. Chessbase is not some nickel and dime enterprise - they do NOT deserve to financially benefit off the work of others who contributed thousands and thousands of of hours of work pro bono. Quite honestly , if you cannot see something is inherently wrong. I'm not saying legally wrong , I am saying common sense wrong with what transpired the last week or so - I cannot help you. I will continue to voice my opinion and if you or others do not like it, I am fine with you blocking me - there is "foe" button, just make me your "foe" and you will never see another one of my posts. I am good with that. Don't bother responding , I have marked you a "foe"

Excellent post!