Stockfish Files Lawsuit Against Chessbase

Two big names in the chess world do battle:

https://stockfishchess.org/blog/2021/our-lawsuit-against-chessbase/

Stockfish is licensed under the GPL - that means you can use it freely, but if you distribute the code you must pass that freedom onto the recipients, by also giving them the source code, and informing them of their rights and responsibilities under the GPL. You don't have the right to deprive your users of the freedoms you yourself received.

By using GPL code, you accept these terms.

If you violate these terms, the GPL states that you *permanently* lose your rights to distribute that source code. That's what's alleged to have happened here. The Stockfish devs are saying Chessbase have violated the GPL and therefore no longer have the right to distribute the code or any product derived from it.

Again, that's the license they accepted when they used the code. No one forced them to. They could have approached the developers and asked to buy a different license. Or written their own engine.

Unfortunately some companies think they can get away with this kind of abuse. They take, but they don't give back.

Chessbase stole Stockfish made changes and will not release the changes as the GPL states.

The GPL states everyone is free to use and make changes but the changes have to be relesed and can not be sold. Chessbase will not release and charges money.

The program FatFritz 2 is Stockfish only Chessbase sells it for $89.00 cash

Chessbase are (well, were - their GPL rights have been terminated) allowed to charge for a Stockfish derived product. That's fine. The problem is they aren't complying with the GPL* in terms of source code distribution and informing users of their GPL rights.

*allegedly

No they are not allowed to sell free software. The GPL states anyone can use but they can not sell and they have to release the changes. No exceptions.

The FSF, who wrote the GPL, disagree with you:

"Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license."

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

Then why are they suing? Did you read what the position of Stockfish? go to the web site of stockfish and read don't post what others say

Perhaps you might try reading the original link I posted, or #4 where this was already answered.

"ChessBase repeatedly violated central obligations of the GPL, which ensures that the user of the software is informed of their rights."

It has nothing to do with selling GPL software, which is explicitly permitted.

Indeed - our copyright and patent systems are very broken.

The GPL (and all copyleft licenses) are an attempt to use the copyright system against itself - to use it to guarantee the freedoms to copy and share for all rather than to restrict those freedoms as copyright intends. It's not perfect, but its the best we've got right now.

Unfortunately, as the GPL protections are based in copyright law, sometimes it is necessary to go to court to protect those freedoms.

The attempts to use the system against itself, I believe is the goal. 

Odd, I didn't notice this news item on the Chessbase News site...

You misunderstand, because this isn't a patent issue, it's a copyright issue. 

When you make a computer program, you write it in a language that is easy for humans to understand, such as python, Java, lisp or C++(source code), then you use a program to make it into a language that only computers can understand(binary). 

When you buy or download a program, like Windows, Among us or Half-life, they usually only give you the binary, they do not give you the source code. 

There is nothing preventing a company from giving you the source code if they wanted to, though. And just like I can't legally give you a copy of Windows, a company can put restrictions on what you can and cannot do with that source code.

Stockfish is just such a program. You can get the binary or the source code. Their restrictions on what you can do with it is the GPL.  You can download the source, you can modify it as much as you want, and you can sell it as your own.  HOWEVER, you have to tell people you are doing that AND let them get your source code with your modifications as well. 

So Stockfish has no issue with chessbase selling Fat Fritz. They have their blessing. Their issue is the source code and hiding the basic facts about the program itself. 

You are still confusing patent and copyright. It isn't about a secret formulas, but basic plagiarism.  

You are free to create your own chess engine. You are free to look at Stockfish and even take notes!  Once you start copy and pasting Stockfish's source code into your own chess engine, you MUST follow the license of the source code. Even though you are freely allowed to view and modify the source code, it still belongs to Stockfish. They haven't given up ownership. Stealing 1% is still stealing.

In your example. if I write a program 1 + 1 = 2 under the GPL, and Euler wanted to extend my program and create e, he would have to release his secret formula.  Euler would still be free to create his own 1 + 1 = 2 program and his e would be secret.  He would be free to look at my 1 + 1 = 2 program, but he can't copy it directly. He would have to do the work himself. 

By sharing the source code to 1 + 1 = 2 to the world under GPL, I expect others who take my work and extend it to also share.  It is a share-and-share-alike license. There is nothing preventing me from never releasing 1 + 1 = 2, and then Euler would have no choice but to rewrite it from scratch. 

It's simple...if you don't want to follow the GPL restrictions, write your own code.  If it were only 1%, that would not be a big burden.

The whole point of the GPL restriction is "feel free to use our code, we are sharing it with the world...but if you want to use our code, you must also share what you have created using it."

It's completely fair (and admirable, I might add).  Open source developers are philanthropists .  Unlike corporations that want to hide their IP, open source developers want to drive innovation.

Do you play FPS video games?  Thank John Carmack, who wanted to release the source code of his previous Doom 3d engines every time he released a new one.  

"Complexity" is not required for a patent, or copyright.  Perhaps you should avail yourself of other online resources that could answer your questions.  Here's some starting points:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1zcbjeH9dY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGzrgMIXLpk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzzkSZ0Jrko

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlmVVSJkzXQ

Software is not math.  It is a legally protected form of expression, and once committed to a medium, it is covered by copyright.  If you use somebody else's words instead of your own, you may be violating copyright.  Same with code.  If you want to write your own search engine, go for it.  If you want to copy Google's search engine line for line, you'll be in jail.

1.  If you have sufficient reason to believe you code is stolen, which an expert can tell by behaviors, then you can use the legal system of your country. The court can force the defendant to release the source to a disinterested 3rd party to see if it was copied if you can convince the court to do so. In this case, the state of Germany has already done this and  determined it was. 

2. Again, you are confusing simple copyright. Leave out processes(patents), and IP, since this involves ONLY copyright.  Words themselves are not copyrightable, but a novel is, even if it is made of words! Crazy, right?  You agree that you don't have permission to copy Harry Potter and sell it on the street corner simply because it's made of words, right? 

~~

//Copyright Binomine 2021

print(1 + 1)

~~

The previous python3 script is owned by me by the rights granted in the Berne Convention. Even though 1 + 1 isn't copyrightable, this particular implementation IS, since it is a creative work. 

Just like Harry Potter is owned by J.K. Rowling, this code belongs to me.  If you copy it, you are violating my copyright* just like copying Harry Potter violates J.K. Rowling's rights. 

*theoretically, due to the ToS of chess.com

"print(1+1)" isn't owned by you as a python3 script just because you published it with a copyright symbol.

Nothing original here, anyone can publish the same thing.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/johnvillasenor/2014/05/19/how-much-copyright-protection-should-source-code-get-a-new-court-ruling-reshapes-the-landscape/amp/

His point holds up. 

If you had "print(1+1)" in your source code, that is not copyright protected.  If you copy the snippet he posted with his comments, character for character with his name instead of yours, ergo making it clear that you stole the code, and did not just write "print(1+1)" yourself...he has a case.

The key is proving that something unique was copied and not simply written by another person with the same idea.  Obviously that gets easier to prove the more code that is copied and depending how easy it is to determine as unique to someone...and a single line of code would almost never suffice.

Stockfish seems to have won chessbase does not sell the product anymore and does not have it on their website.

In my opinion, (disclaimer when I post on court sensitive matters)

Chessbase may have been misled by Albert Silver as to his development efforts.  However, 

Chessbase will have to explain the origin of the Fat Fritz 2 engine to the courts and the reasons why they feel it is proprietary software.   

I put FF2 in my cart on ChessBase this morning, so I think it is still for sale. I didn't complete the purchase, since I already own a copy.  I believe stopping sale of the product before you get to court could be interpreted as a partial admission of culpability.