Fat Fritz 2

[Dann Corbit]

If they make the source public, then there is no violation of the GPL in selling it.

If the SF developers sue they will lose the case and their legal fees.

On the other hand, people who buy it will be able to give their source away for free (and they must be given the source if they ask for it)

Right now you can buy MySQL here:
https://www.mysql.com/products/

You can also get the source code and build it yourself.
You an also get any of the forks, some of which are free and some are for sale

same story for linux. You can pay for redhat or get centos or ubuntu free.

GPL is a strange model, but I have seen worse.

[AdminX]

If there were a lawsuit I guess the devs could start a GoFundMe account to get support for funding for it.

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

You may find, for instance, that some of your contributors have employment contracts that assign ownership of all code written by them — even in their spare time — to the employer. The GPL can look good until you actually put it to the test on a real project with litigation.

That just makes things worse for ChessBase, no? Without a valid license, you can't redistribute at all, due to basic copyright. People seem to forget this.

I have enforced the GPL several times, with laywers. Nothing ever went to court. But definitely not everything concluded satisfactorily, either (I'm not going to sue a random 2 person company in India that doesn't look like it ever generated any profit). I've also seen many blatant violations that went ignored. I have this Korg instrument that's entirely Linux based, though you'd never guess from Korg's site. https://github.com/Polprzewodnikowy/KorgPackage

If they make the source public, then there is no violation of the GPL in selling it.

Correct, but the violation already happened. As to why that matters: just read the license, it's literally spelled out.

[towforce]

Right now you can buy MySQL here:
https://www.mysql.com/products/

You can also get the source code and build it yourself.
You an also get any of the forks, some of which are free and some are for sale

I have some experience of this: MySQL is free (you don't even have to compile it yourself), but you have to pay if you distribute it as part of a product you sell.

A previous company I worked for used MySQL in the host part of a product, but a Firebird database in the part that went to customers for this reason.

This sounds unenforceable - but MySQL is owned by Oracle, and they tend to be aggressive in their litigation: they sued Google for money from the Android OS because they own Java, and claimed that some programming interfaces that Android used to use (Google has removed them now) could be copyrighted. A ridiculous claim IMO, but the main point is that if Oracle are willing to sue Google, they would sue anyone. Then again, being small is a good protection against legal action: Google is worth suing because it has a lot of money.

Edit: I think the information above might be outdated - I think you can do what you like with the community edition - link. It might be that the situation Dann refers to relates to the "Standard", "Enterprise" and "Clustered" editions on offer at the link Dan gave. Oracle is famously fond of obfuscated license terms, and I've heard of cases of companies being invoiced for more they they were expecting by this trickery.

[h1a8]

Correct, but the violation already happened. As to why that matters: just read the license, it's literally spelled out.

You said correct as in it wasn’t a violation then you are saying it was a violation. I’m confused. If the violation is not selling it then what is the violation?

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

You said correct as in it wasn’t a violation then you are saying it was a violation. I’m confused. If the violation is not selling it then what is the violation?

Selling is perfectly fine and allowed by the GPL. But they are not providing the complete source, and that's a requirement - regardless if you sell it or not.

They can fix the violation by publishing the full source - what Dan was proposing - but they can't change what has already happened, i.e. that they're violating it now.

Slowing down won't save you from a speeding ticket if you already got caught by a Gatso.

[Modern Times]

New Fat Fritz information here today:

https://en.chessbase.com/post/interview ... -fritz-2-0

[gaard]

New Fat Fritz information here today:

https://en.chessbase.com/post/interview ... -fritz-2-0

Interviewer: How did you overcome the moment of starting almost completely from scratch with the Fat Fritz 2.0 development?

AS: It was tortuous!

ROFLMAOSHMSFOAIDMT

[Guenther]

New Fat Fritz information here today:

https://en.chessbase.com/post/interview ... -fritz-2-0

Lol that's even bigger scam than before.
The headline starts that way:

2/12/2021 – Albert Silver is the head coach of Fat Fritz, and its successor. His path to inventing the 2.0 engine is worth talking about...

It's impossible to take CB serious anymore, they have lost their mind - really someone should sue them.

His path to inventing the 2.0 engine hahaha

Now surely the unwashed masses think he really has invented something, a new engine. My god it cannot get worse anymore.

[dkappe]

You may find, for instance, that some of your contributors have employment contracts that assign ownership of all code written by them — even in their spare time — to the employer. The GPL can look good until you actually put it to the test on a real project with litigation.

That just makes things worse for ChessBase, no? Without a valid license, you can't redistribute at all, due to basic copyright. People seem to forget this.

If I’ve built a business distributing and supporting GPL’d software that then turns out not to be GPL’d or even owned by the publisher, how is that good for Stockfish?