Fat Fritz is not the Only Ripoff and now ChessBase is Getting Sued

@Mi5ter_t : I don't think they are being sued for not giving the source for their own software.
You can use open source functions without going open source yourself, but concealment/deception
are licence breaches. Fat Fritz was sold with false claims.
There are issues here I don't fully understand, it sounds as though some SF devs are trying to exclude
CB as distributors because they previously broke licence conditions. The possibility of this will be tested in court.
Exactly how closely linked s/w must be before you are obliged to go open-source yourself is not entirely clear to me either,
and this case may explore the issue, probably breaking new ground. In the past, the chancers have relied on the developers
not having the money to take action.

To those who claim that chess users who bought FF 'found value': they were not told that the product was a copy of a FoC product. It was pretended it was an improvement. Lots of chessplayers are poorly informed and vulnerable to deception.

As to how you can know the licence breach has taken place, if they are naive enough not to modify the stolen s/w, the binaries will be bitwise identical. Unless heavy editing has taken place, large chunks will be the same. Also, decompilers are available.

Is there any way that I could help stockfish developers to win this case ?
Donation or something ?

It really enrages me what chessbase did. And I really hope that at everyone stop supporting and buying stuff from them. They don't deserve it.

@ChaoticMove I agree with you.

@Shazyes They are yet to try the case. But ChessBase products are by far the best chess programs out there. In terms of interface and databases. If wrongdoing was a fact then recourse should be done, but that does not throw away all the effort ChessBase has put through their technology.

Also, can someone explain why public shaming is okay here although the ToS of lichess prohibits that? Just asking...

We are a chess playing site (One of the best, no doubt). I really don't like when lichess officially take side in these conversations when there is not even a settled case.

If this spark a legal issue with CB or anyone else then lichess will need to use patron's money most likely to pay for legal fees which is not the purpose of the patron model.

Can lichess avoid the public shaming completely or modify these articles in a way that doesn't look like lichess are stating "facts".

Let's keep it a Chess Playing Site! It has become very elitists lately where most of the streamers showcased in the frontpage need to be a public figure or titled player. Can we improve that to allow a more transparent selection?

@rampageJackson

Fact: ChessBase has a proven track record of repackaging open source software and selling it under false and deceptive pretenses.

Fact: The Stockfish community is taking ChessBase to court because they (Stockfish) have a good-faith belief that they (ChessBase) are committing similar deceptions with other products.

Fact: The chess community is interested and has a right to know.

This is not slanderous nor shaming. Lichess will face no legal repercussions for reporting on this.

> does not throw away all the effort ChessBase has put through their technology
Reputation takes a long time to build and mere moments to throw it away. So yes, being caught red-handed has the consequence of overshadowing any good you've ever done and calls into question the legitimacy of your previous work.

Glad they're keeping open source open source

@Wrinn
1. Fact: ChessBase has a proven track record of repackaging open source software and selling it under false and deceptive pretenses. SHOW PROOF PERHAPS? We all want to know and read.

2. Fact: The Stockfish community is taking ChessBase to court because they (Stockfish) have a good-faith belief that they (ChessBase) are committing similar deceptions with other products. THIS IS AN ALLEGATION.

3. This is not slanderous nor shaming. Lichess will face no legal repercussions for reporting on this. EVEN IF AN OPPONENT IS CHEATING LICHESS USERS CANNOT PUBLICLY SHAME THEM. YOU CANNOT KNOW IF SOMEONE ELSE WANTS TO SUE LICHESS. ARE YOU AN ORACLE?

4. So yes, being caught red-handed has the consequence of overshadowing any good you've ever done and calls into question the legitimacy of your previous work. LOOK AT YOU NOW! BEFORE WE HAVE A DECISION IN THE CASE YOU ALREADY ACCEPTED WRONGDOING.

4. I AM QUITE SUSPICIOUS of your ACCOUNT. Fairly new and barely played.

@plastic_pusher 'You can use open source functions without going open source yourself, but concealment/deception
are licence breaches. Fat Fritz was sold with false claims. '

GPL is a copyright license, it comes into effect when the software is copied which is what happens when you sell it or give it away fro free. it's not an end user license. It doesn't restrict anyone from running it or even modifying and running it.

You can use GPL software, modify and whatnot, and you don't have to give your modifications back. But if you give your modified program to someone else either for free or for sale, you have to inform the recipient of their rights under the GPL which allows the recipient to request a copy of the source code. only recipients of the modified software are entitled to request a copy of the modified code, but the recipients can then give that code to upstream or to anyone else.

For a period of time chessbase weren't informing their customers of their rights under the GPL, however they fixed that and that's not why they are now getting sued. chessbase are now informing their customers of their rights and providing source code, however, it's not possible to compile that source code into a working fat fritz because some parts are missing. SF are claiming this is a violation of the GPL and chessbase are saying it isn't. SF as the copyright holders informed chessbase they have revoked the GPL but chessbase are still selling fat fritz. The courts will decide.

I've also read allegations houdini might have SF code and be in breach.

'To those who claim that chess users who bought FF 'found value': they were not told that the product was a copy of a FoC product. It was pretended it was an improvement. Lots of chessplayers are poorly informed and vulnerable to deception.'

Some weren't told of their rights under the GPL, many were. It's not a 1 for 1 copy of stockfish, it's modified, value added. It's not up to you and me to decide if others found value or not. I have read people were happy to pay for it knowing exactly what it was. It's not just whether fat fritz is worth the cost for the bits chessbase added, there's also other issues like malware, trust, convenience. Even though you don't think fat fritz is worth the cost, I know for a fact other people do.

Exactly all stockfish provides is an engine. ChessBase modify and make it so in a way that is friendly. That has value to me. I say, it doesnt look good on Stockfish to go after a company who clearly improves their engine exposure in so many ways.

Suppose tomorrow lichess is prohibited because they have a web based version.

Let be very exaggerated. Suppose the creator of the World Wide Web decides we no longer can use his product or derivative because we have not informed people that his software is open source or shared the license etc.

It is very frustrating that all open source maintainers wants to enforce Open Source as in FREE FOREVER no matter what you do. FIRST OF ALL a lot of people if not most use linux commercially and Torvalds is not whining about it.

Open source does not exclude commercial and it shouldn't unless you specifically do so.

Different would be if a company claims that without putting any effort, their engine is a new version when in fact is stockfish. Also, stockfish team has benefited from private efforts as well, namely AlphaZero papers etc. So please give me a break and stop being so purist when everybody has a glass roof.

Src:
stockfishchess.org/blog/2020/introducing-nnue-evaluation/
www.newyorker.com/science/elements/how-the-artificial-intelligence-program-alphazero-mastered-its-games

has Stockfish given any mention to AlphaZero/Leela efforts in their license?

@rampageJackson

The problem isn't using stockfish to make a commercial product. The problem is making a ctrl c + ctrl v at stockfish and selling it as BRAND NEW engine, which is clearly not.
Secondly, any modifications done to stockfish SHOULD BE avaible to the stockfish team, which they did not disclose, despite the fact that they did make slight modifications to stockfish. So you get an chess engine that is free and a result from years of hardwork, you make some slightly modifications, claim that it is a brand new superior chess engine, do not make the modifications avaible from the team that developed the original engine, steal people's money selling a product they did not make and you really think that it is all fine and good because they have a freaking "friendly interface" ?

So yeah, they did break the license terms from using the stockfish engine. And that's only talking about the legal aspect of it, because really, if you support this on a moral standpoint, than dude.... I really hope you are benefiting from chessbase in someway.

EDIT: Chessbase gave stockfish the coding without the weights. It's not possible to run fat fritz 2 without the weights, nor understand the changes that they actually made. It really look like it was something they did intentionally to misinform people that don't have any idea about how chess engines work.

I'm in lockdown and bored. This reply isn't necessary but I've got nothing better to do.

@rampageJackson 'Suppose tomorrow lichess is prohibited because they have a web based version.'

lichess complies with the stockfish GPL. lichess makes stockfish better and stockfish makes lichess better. Together they are stronger than the sum of the individual parts.

'Let be very exaggerated. Suppose the creator of the World Wide Web decides we no longer can use his product or derivative because we have not informed people that his software is open source or shared the license etc.'

www isn't a product, it's a set of standards which are open and free. The existing standards will always be open and free, hopefully new additions will also be open and free but I think some internet video standards aren't free. I don't really follow it though.

'has Stockfish given any mention to AlphaZero/Leela efforts in their license?'

stockfish came before alphazero (which is closed source) and Leela (which is some sort of open source/free software) but if stockfish uses Leela code, the leela license must be compatible with GPL and stockfish wouldn't knowingly break the license and if they found they did they would fix it.

I should add one of the beefs stockfish has with chessbase is stockfish are alleging chessbase are repeadingly and knowingly breaking the terms of the GPL. If someone makes an honest mistake and accidentally breaks the GPL they will be politely informed and asked to comply. If they comply, no harm no foul.