Hacker News Reader

Comment by nichch | Hacker News Reader

> Due to Chessbase’s repeated license violations, leading developers of Stockfish have terminated their GPL license with ChessBase permanently.

What do they mean by this?

View on HN

From GNU GPL v3:

8. Termination.

You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).

However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.

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.

Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same material under section 10.

GPLv2 has the termination provision but doesn't have the automatic-reinstatement provisions.

The GPL Cooperation Committment is basically an addendum to GPLv2 licenses that adds this clause.

https://gplcc.github.io/gplcc/

GPL allows you to use and distribute open-source code as long as you follow certain conditions like open sourcing derivatives under the GPL.

Since Chessbase has not done that, Stockfish devs are no longer allowing Chessbase to use their code.

Absent a license, ChessBase has no right to distribute any of the Stockfish code.

This simply reverts the code to copyrighted content, much like a book.

I think they've revoked even Chessbase's license to use the code. So, not like a book, where if you have the physical copy you can generally read it, but more like a pirated copy of Windows or Oracle, where you owe license fees per user, per core, per day.

I'm not sure if it's settled law on whether or not you need to license to use code...

I don't think it quite works that way: the license is really just an agreement between the user and the rights holder that they will not sue for infringement. So use without license really means "you may expect to be sued". The outcome of that suit would determine whether or not you "need to license to use code". I'm guessing there have been many cases where the copyright owners for some code sued someone for using it and won.

For distributing it, making copies of it, and violating contacts, definitely. For using a program already on a computer with no click through contract that you agree to to run it (or other contractual obligation), I'm not aware of any cases.

That they can sue is a non statement, you can sue for anything, but I don't believe it is obviously (or even likely) copyright infringement...

Even if you could execute the code you somehow obtained, but for which you've somehow lost the license, for ChessBase it becomes worthless, as they can no longer distribute - whether sell or give away - anything building up on it.

They do also have a cloud offering - you pay them to evaluate a chess position on their computer - so I could see the license to use the code being important, though it's separate to their flagship offering of shrinkwrap software.

To be clear, it would be ChessBase that would be sued, not individual users. And ChessBase would be the one allegedly in violation of "distributing it, making copies of it, and violating contracts". Since their license to use Stockfish seems to be revoked, it seems like it would fall under copyright infringement at that point (although up to the courts to decide, of course).

Certainly, I'm just responding to "So, not like a book, where if you have the physical copy you can generally read it"

As far as I know it is like a book, if you have a copy you can read (execute) it, you just can't make new copies for your customers.

Whether or not that helps ChessBase... well... ya...

Licenses, in general, promises rather than agreements:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/license

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/License

Using software is not one of the enumerated rights reserved to a copyright owner. Copying and distributing it are. So it's unclear whether a copyright owner has standing to sue you for using their software without a license. In the US there is conflicting caselaw, hinging on the legal status of the temporary copy made in the computer's RAM when a program is launched.

Isn't it normally the case that you need a license to use software products made by other people?

Like, if I ran Windows on a server and Microsoft revoked my license. Surely that's tested in a court at some point?

It's not settled law, but IMO probably not, I don't believe it's ever been tested in court.

Windows comes with a click-wrap contract that you agree to when you install it, that restricts certain things you could usually do. So it's a bit of a bad example... but I'll use it anyways.

What does (generally, not legal advice, not a lawyer) need a license is making a copy of the software, i.e. installing windows onto your computer actually makes a copy, or making a copy of the installer for your friend - makes a copy. Just booting up the machine that already has windows installed on, that's (probably) not copyright infringement even if you don't have a valid license. It might be breach of contract depending on what contracts you have agreed to though! Physically giving your friend the computer with windows already installed on it, is similarly not copyright infringement. Cloning the hard-drive so you now have two hard-drives with windows installed, that's copyright infringement.

> So, not like a book, where if you have the physical copy you can generally read it

So like an ebook then. We don't have a good distinction in English between a) medium-length arrangement of words and punctuation and b) book.

Document

The Magna Charta is a document, but not an E-Book.

Revert is not the correct term. GPL-licensed code is still and always copyrighted, even when GPL-licensed. The GPL is itself a copyright license.

Only CC0/WTFPL/Public Domain are renunciations of copyright.

Even then, IIRC CC0 is not that easy to apply to code (even CC do not recommend it for that: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm... ), WTFPL is entirely untested (even more so than GPL/MIT which are also not entirely tested in courts) and some regions do not recognize public domain. For example sqlite sells a license for what is public domain code partially for the reason of "You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the public domain" and "You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the right of authors to dedicate their work to the public domain".

Also, when it comes to code dedicated to public domain it is good to consider what wikipedia says about implied warranty: "The licensing process also allows authors, particularly software authors, the opportunity to explicitly deny any implied warranty that might give someone a basis for legal action against them." It is always good to include a clause saying that there is no warranty, implied or otherwise (unless of course you provide a warranty, which you probably should not do without restrictions on OSS code).

> the CC0 Public Domain Dedication is GPL-compatible and acceptable for software.

The link I provided from the authors of the license also says "We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software."

They say it's compatible, but not recommended.

CC0 doesn't count as a typical CC license. The FSF and OSI both recommend using CC0 for software.

CC0 and WTFPL are also copyright licenses. Works available under these licenses can be used with very few restrictions (basically, as few as permitted by law), but the works are still copyrighted.

I don't believe that this is accurate.

It’s simplified, but more or less accurate. CC0 is an attempt at making a public domain deed possible for jurisdictions that do not know public domain deeds like the US does. German Urheberrecht is not entirely like US copyright, some rights of the author are impossible to waive. So CC0 has a fallback for those jurisdictions, it grants a license to the fullest extend possible under the law. https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/legalcode

Quoting from https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/cc..., emphasis mine:

"Unlike the Public Domain Mark, CC0 should not be used to mark works already free of known copyright and database restrictions and in the public domain throughout the world. However, it can be used to waive copyright and database rights to the extent you may have these rights in your work under the laws of at least one jurisdiction, even if your work is free of restrictions in others. Doing so clarifies the status of your work unambiguously worldwide and facilitates reuse."

As I understand it, you can't just waive copyright on your own work - copyright is something you get automatically in most jurisdictions on the planet. Licenses like CC0 and WTFPL are operating within the copyright regime - they use the laws to make your work behave as if it was not subject to copyright - but they can't actually make your work not copyrighted.

It's like a difference between simulation and reality. CC0, WTFPL, etc. are simulating a copyright-free reality on top of the copyright system. No matter how close to perfect they get, it's still a simulation, and copyright is the underlying runtime.

It depends on jurisdiction. Some places (I think the US is one of these) do allow you to put works in the public domain, and CC0 does that where possible. The “as if” license is a fallback.

So everyone can use it but can be individually revoked?

Seems inefficient, but I understand if thats their only remedy, as provided by their own license

As seen in the section a sibling comment posted, the GPL terminates itself during certain conditions. So, they're either confused or trying to play lawyer a bit too hard. (IANAL)

It means they are in further violation of a license they already disregarded.

I suppose they were providing the stockfish software to Chessbase (and everyone else) under the GPL, but now they won't do that any more.

I don't think that prevents somebody sympathetic (if such a person exists) from re-distributing it to Chessbase though.

> I don't think that prevents somebody sympathetic (if such a person exists) from re-distributing it to Chessbase though.

Would this be legal?

No. Stockfish owns the copyright to their code. You can't copy stockfish code without a license from stockfish. There's no provision in the GPL for some third party to re-grant a GPL license to someone else after their license was terminated.

Don't think it's a problem to give them the code, as long as your own license isn't terminated.

But it would be a breach of copyright for Chessbase to distribute or modify the code, after their license has been terminated.

It doesn't stop another person redistributing -- but then Chessbase still has no license for the copy they received. It doesn't help them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com