connor_mcmonigle wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 4:44 am
Desiring to see a company which has repeatedly violated your license fail is natural. This is only really problematic if the intent of the lawsuit was to see to the failure of the offending company. However, clearly, the intent of the lawsuit is to enforce the GPL and the consequences of its termination on account of the license violations. To suggest otherwise would be to misrepresent what has been stated.
I think there's a lot of assumptions in this thread like Chessbase would fail without stockfish. Chessbase still has deep market penetration, a large sales operation, and a lot of customers. I bet they still make sales of their products without stockfish. The pros on here may over estimate that only teh highest elo is all people are looking for. I have a lot of users on an easier to play chess program. I have a lot of users hundreds a day on openingtree on iOS with crafty cause they love the book and style of program and the analysis is enough. Pro's also know how to go to stockfishchess.org and get stockfish for their chessbase products.
Losing stockfish rights would set chessbase back basically. The stockfish team simply needs to make the decision they are going to retaliate for abuse of copyright which they have. They seek what is called damages. They want chessbase to take on these damages. It's the way the world works when someone does something wrong. But don't assume every set back in life a company faces is the end of the world. Chessbase I bet is not broken.
Sopel wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 7:40 pmIf I interpret you saying something along "CB might not be liable for Houdarts code" then yes, I think that might be something that whoever claimed copyright violation will have to prove. Though CB's version of Houdini does use code owned by CB. It's not just a distribution of the exact same version that was available directly from RH.
I don't know the details of the relationship between CB and RH, but it seems plausible that CB did not have access to the H6 source code and had no reason to think that RH had violated any copyrights. And it seems CB stopped selling H6 after SF copyright holders complained to CB about it.
GPLv3 wrote: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.
I suspect there was only one "notice of violation": the letter that complained both about H6 and about FF2. In any event, even if there were two separate notices, it seems unreasonable to hold the H6 violation against CB for the purpose of permanently terminating the license.
Sopel wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 7:40 pmIf I interpret you saying something along "CB might not be liable for Houdarts code" then yes, I think that might be something that whoever claimed copyright violation will have to prove. Though CB's version of Houdini does use code owned by CB. It's not just a distribution of the exact same version that was available directly from RH.
I don't know the details of the relationship between CB and RH, but it seems plausible that CB did not have access to the H6 source code and had no reason to think that RH had violated any copyrights.
Considering how closely Houdini is integrated with their distribution of the GUI (afaik they are coupled into one installer and you install either both or none) they should have at least cared about it, and maybe they did and even asked RH about it? The fact that CB didn't retract Houdini earlier makes me think that either they didn't think anyone would go to court over it, or they had a statement from RH that would make only him accountable. It's gonna be interesting to see whether something happens in that line.
GPLv3 wrote: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.
I suspect there was only one "notice of violation": the letter that complained both about H6 and about FF2. In any event, even if there were two separate notices, it seems unreasonable to hold the H6 violation against CB for the purpose of permanently terminating the license.
There surely were 2 separate notices, otherwise going to court would be shooting oneself in the foot. I agree the ground is kinda muddy here, as it could be considered that CB merely distributes Houdini; it all depends on how the level of integration with the CB's software is looked upon I think.
dangi12012 wrote:No one wants to touch anything you have posted. That proves you now have negative reputations since everyone knows already you are a forum troll.
Maybe you copied your stockfish commits from someone else too?
I will look into that.
Someone violated GPL on the same software multiple accounts - true, GPL has such a term to permanently terminate their license in this situation - true, some people terminated their license with the violator - true, ongoing lawsuit to enforce the termination outcome - true.
The rest are minor details, some will argue that the net itself is still in question of its license status, some will argue that the violations are of mere oversight, some will argue that people bite the bullet of going entrepreneurship over trivial things, but who cares.
MikeB wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 6:59 pm
Chessbase no longer sells H6. That change was after SF developers filed their complaint.
Was it? My understanding is there was a negotiation prior to any lawsuit being filed (although it’s not clear if it’s actually been filed) during which CB withdrew H6 from its shop. It’s easy to get these facts wrong, but I think getting them right is important.
I might not have used the correct word "complaint". I understand from one of the parties that there was communication of some sort between the parties and Houdini was withdrawn from sale on the CB site at one point , not sure if is still true or not.
MikeB wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:50 pm
I might not have used the correct word "complaint". I understand from one of the parties that there was communication of some sort between the parties and Houdini was withdrawn from sale on the CB site at one point , not sure if is still true or not.
I guess someone should tell the Fat Titz/Stockfish project so they can get in touch with their lawyers. Oh, sorry. Was that off brand?
Fat Titz by Stockfish, the engine with the bodaciously big net. Remember: size matters. If you want to learn more about this engine just google for "Fat Titz".
MikeB wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:50 pm
I might not have used the correct word "complaint". I understand from one of the parties that there was communication of some sort between the parties and Houdini was withdrawn from sale on the CB site at one point , not sure if is still true or not.
I guess someone should tell the Fat Titz/Stockfish project so they can get in touch with their lawyers. Oh, sorry. Was that off brand?
Sopel's Fat Titz 1.0 is perfectly GPLv3 compliant, like MikeB's Harmon, BlueFish, Honey, Black Diamond and Oki Maguro.
Also Dkappe's Night Nurse CF, Dark Horse CF and Toga III CF are GPLv3 compliants, since NNUE cannot be copywriteable.
And THANK YOU to all you 3 geniuses for feeding my passion
AlexChess wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 6:33 pm
Also Dkappe's Night Nurse CF, Dark Horse CF and Toga III CF are GPLv3 compliants, since NNUE cannot be copywriteable.
What is CF? I certainly don’t distribute anything under that name. Dark Horse is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/
If you received it embedded in an engine, I’d like to know who violated the license.
Fat Titz by Stockfish, the engine with the bodaciously big net. Remember: size matters. If you want to learn more about this engine just google for "Fat Titz".
AlexChess wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 6:33 pm
Also Dkappe's Night Nurse CF, Dark Horse CF and Toga III CF are GPLv3 compliants, since NNUE cannot be copywriteable.
What is CF? I certainly don’t distribute anything under that name. Dark Horse is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/
If you received it embedded in an engine, I’d like to know who violated the license.
I don't remember from which site I have downloaded them 6 months ago, but your NNUEs work fine with Cfish (I have simply binded them to Cfish also on macOS with very good results) so they are not embedded or modified. I don't distribute the mix, only test it and If you give me the official links I update them. But it seems to me that YOU named it CF...
Last edited by AlexChess on Sat Aug 28, 2021 8:11 am, edited 2 times in total.
AlexChess wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 6:33 pm
Also Dkappe's Night Nurse CF, Dark Horse CF and Toga III CF are GPLv3 compliants, since NNUE cannot be copywriteable.
What is CF? I certainly don’t distribute anything under that name. Dark Horse is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives 4.0 license. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/
If you received it embedded in an engine, I’d like to know who violated the license.
New paradox: If Albert Silver illegally distributes a Dkappe network, will Dkappe:
A) Defend Albert by posting "hot-takes" about copyright law that contradict his others postings
B) Call it an open violation, when in all previous cases he refuses to be anything but a milk-toast fence sitter
#WeAreAllDraude #JusticeForDraude #RememberDraude #LeptirBigUltra "Those who can't do, clone instead" - Eduard ( A real life friend, not this forum's Eduard )
Mac mini M1 8GB-256GB, Windows 11 & Ubuntu ARM64.
