Many commenters are missing that the issue is not that an Open Source project was repackaged as a commercial project, but that the open source origin has been hidden.
> Many commenters are missing that the issue is not that an Open Source project was repackaged as a commercial project, but that the open source origin has been hidden.
That is not what Joost VandeVondele, current maintainer of the Stockfish project, posts:
> Recently, ChessBase has started distribution and sales of the Fat Fritz 2 chess engine. This chess engine is a Stockfish derivative, with a few lines of code modification (engine name, authors list and a few parameters), and a new set of NNUE net weights considered proprietary
> Selling Stockfish derivatives is possible with the GPLv3 license we grant, but not without requirements. In particular, the license states that if one redistributes a program derived from our work, the corresponding modifications of our sources and all information needed to build that program must be made available. Only after explicitly informing Albert Silver (the author of the net in Fat Fritz 2) of a license violation have matching C++ sources, but not the net weights, been made available. Obviously, we condemn the approach taken.
> but that the open source origin has been hidden.
What is the specific licensing issue here?
If this is about them not liking the product, fine, but don't dirty the open source ethos unless they are breaking the license. Part of the problem is the current HN headline perhaps.
The specific licensing issue is that both are under GPL v3.0. Which means that you can sell a derivative, but you have to clearly advertise that it wasn't your work, provide source upon request, and so on.
They did none of this and so are in copyright violation. And so should be sued.
...and if they're breaking the license, don't "name and shame"; send them a C&D. And if that's ignored, sue them.
Seriously, there's some attitude in open source circles that looks down on using the law to achieve compliance. Why bother putting up such a carefully thought-out legal document, and then whining on a blog when it's broken, instead of using it for its intended purpose -- a court of law?
> Also, due to the ill view of patents on this forum, I imagine people here are simply put off from using the law
I'm not talking about HackerNews in particular here. There's a deep divide in the Linux kernel community, for instance, about GPL enforcement. Some people, often represented by the Software Freedom Conservancy, believe in "speak softly but carry a big stick": i.e., try by negotiation to get violators into compliance, but sue when negotiation fails. Other people (including, IIRC people like Greg KH) have at some point openly stated that they would never consider a lawsuit an appropriate course of action.
I'm not sure where the Leela Zero and Stockfish people stand on this; I just sort of assumed from the tone of the article that they were in the "never sue" camp. Maybe they're in the "I didn't realize we could do that" camp, in which case I'd strongly recommend they get in touch with SFC.
> ... send them a C&D. And if that's ignored, sue them. Why bother putting up such a carefully thought-out legal document ...&c&c&c... instead of using it for its intended purpose -- a court of law?
Because
* legal action is expensive, time-consuming, and may be simply impossible (or equivalently impracticable) depending on where you, or the other parties, reside/do business; and
* legal documents do not in actuality exist to enable someone's courtroom drama fantasies. In anticipation of civil disagreement, competent lawyers will advise that adversarial proceedings are a last resort, not a first measure, and draft documents accordingly.
> “Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
