Stockfish: Our lawsuit against ChessBase

[scchess]

If the people are stupid enough to rush and hurry to buy a program based on the open source, it is their own fault and not the one who distributed it. They should have been aware that any strong program that comes with a network is probably Stockfish based, so they are without an excuse...

But some people are too eager to get rid of their money without giving it a second thought....

100% Incorrect. Only very few people understand Fat Fritz is just Stockfish. Even chess professionals are very confused.

[Rebel]

One unfortunate fact about the German legal system is that legal filings, expert testimony, etc., are not public records. Perhaps the SF project and their lawyers could make some effort to make the proceedings more public?

And the loser pays for all costs. It that still the case?

I asked a retired German lawyer about this. Apparently the winning party gets the statutory legal cost, which is probably a lot less than competent legal representation costs.

An interesting wrinkle that I wasn’t aware of is that the defendant has to come up with court fees proportional to the value of the claim. So if there are suits and counter suits, both parties would have to pony up € before the trial.

Edit: I misunderstood. It’s the claimant, not the defendant, that has to pay the fees.

Ah, that's fair enough.

[DrCliche]

leading developers of Stockfish have terminated their GPL license with ChessBase permanently

Is this possible? You can sue someone to comply with the terms of the license. But since a FOSS license offers the software to anyone who complies, curing any violations should enable continued distribution, if I'm not mistaken. GPL v. 3 says "All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met."

In plain English terms, yes, it's possible. A violation of the GPL automatically revokes your license to the software, which, after a short time, requires the consent of the copyright holder to be reinstated. So ChessBase's license to use Stockfish was automatically revoked, and the Stockfish copyright holders have not consented to reinstatement of the license.

As ChessBase and its owners and agents no longer have a license to Stockfish and/or its source, they are likely, as a matter of law and fact, currently in violation of copyright law in most countries.

[dkappe]

100% Incorrect. Only very few people understand Fat Fritz is just Stockfish. Even chess professionals are very confused.

From the ChessBase shop (American).

Fat Fritz 2.0 is the successor to the revolutionary Fat Fritz, which was based on the famous AlphaZero algorithms. Using a new Japanese AI technology that achieves optimal performance on regular computer processors (CPUs – no expensive graphic card required) it combines the best of both worlds: a massive new neural network, trained by Albert Silver with the original Fat Fritz, while learning from the surgical precision of Stockfish’s legendary search. This new version takes chess analysis to the next level and is a must for players of all skill levels, whether beginner or professional, who won’t accept any compromises. Its understanding is unparalleled, as it learned by literally studying billions of chess positions.

Now that is awful marketing drivel. I actually know what all of the parts are and even I don’t understand it. I do know that Stockfish is involved somehow. It says so in the blurb. Are you saying that customers need a more sophisticated understanding of stockfish’s involvement in order for FF2 to be compliant with the GPLv3?

P.S. I’m pretty sure that aside from source code and author identification in said source code, there is no requirement that a derivative work mention Stockfish at all. I’m guessing CB mentioned stockfish because it’s a selling point, but that is just a guess.

[AdminX]

Could they (Chessbase) have done something like what chess.com did with Komodo and pay for the rights to license the engine for use with their NNUE data? Selling only their NNUE and not trying to deceive their customers. Also giving something back to the developers in the process.

[dkappe]

Could they (Chessbase) have done something like what chess.com did with Komodo and pay for the rights to license the engine for use with their NNUE data? Selling only their NNUE and not trying to deceive their customers. Also giving something back to the developers in the process.

Different license. The GPLv3 is pretty permissive by comparison.

Anyhow, I’ll check back in 2025 to see how things turned out. In the meantime, maybe we can start some sort of betting exchange on the outcome?

[supersharp77]

This lawsuit is going to take years to roll up. By then, Chessbase will have "Fat Fritz 5".

Hahahahaha...LMAO Hilarious Take !!....I figure Chessbase has Deep pockets after all these years!? Anyone know How big a Bankroll Stockfish has stored up? This could indeed take some time!!

[Graham Banks]

are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met."

Perhaps this is the key phrase. It can be revoked if conditions are not met.

There is a 30 day clause to rectify any issues if I recall reading correctly.
If they're talking FF2, there was an issue with the net being embedded with the engine when originally released, but that was fixed very quickly, well within the 30 days.

Jon may well be right, but I'm no expert.

30 days only for the first strike.
They were too slow with FF2, so first strike.

Afterwards they were still selling Houdini, so strike 2.

License revoked.

With regards to FF2, the exe and net separation was included in the first patch that came less than a week after release (called FF2 SE).
That is less than 30 days. How was that too slow?

The GPL clearly says that once fixed the license Is reinstated.

[AndrewGrant]

are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met."

Perhaps this is the key phrase. It can be revoked if conditions are not met.

There is a 30 day clause to rectify any issues if I recall reading correctly.
If they're talking FF2, there was an issue with the net being embedded with the engine when originally released, but that was fixed very quickly, well within the 30 days.

Jon may well be right, but I'm no expert.

30 days only for the first strike.
They were too slow with FF2, so first strike.

Afterwards they were still selling Houdini, so strike 2.

License revoked.

With regards to FF2, the exe and net separation was included in the first patch that came less than a week after release (called FF2 SE).
That is less than 30 days. How was that too slow?

The GPL clearly says that once fixed the license Is reinstated.

Stockfish team is demonstrating a pattern of GPL violations with Houdini and FF2, for their claims.

[dkappe]

(Emphasis mine.)

Stockfish team is demonstrating a pattern of GPL violations with Houdini and FF2, for their claims.

I guess that means that Cucumber will have to be deposed about a crime he may have committed. Oh dear.