17 ms·

If this goes to trial, I think this might be the cleanest and most straightforward test of the GPL in court we've had up to this point?

reedciccio 5y ago
IIRC the GPL has been tested in German courts before. Would this be any different from other GPL violation in court like this one https://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt/ https://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_fra...?
- sbx320 5y ago
  Most of the prior GPL cases ruled on (including the one you linked) were about redistribution of modified works without providing source and about who actually has standing to sue regarding GPL violations. This case however brings two new (as far as I'm aware) questions to the table: - Whether the permanent license revocation clause holds up - Whether the neural networks is considered a part of the covered work (and must therefore be provided in "source" form, rather than just a trained network) The second one is especially interesting, since the court will likely have to go into how far the GPLs coverage extends into other parts of a covered work.
dsiegel2275 5y ago
I agree. Likely a quick checkmate in court.
- wiz21c 5y ago
  Stockfish has an opportunity to make money here. No?
  - alexfromapex 5y ago
    It will be interesting, depends where jurisdiction falls and how that jurisdiction interprets any alleged damages since GPL content is normally released free of charge.
    - indymike 5y ago
      Copyright infringement can have large statutory damages that have nothing to do with the actual financial damage from the infringement.
      - yladiz 5y ago
        Case in point, the awards given against people who pirate something like a movie which are completely detached from the actual damage caused by the piracy.
        DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
        "Deterrent value", apparently.
        rhizome 5y ago
        Yeah, that's what "statutory damages" means. In the US, if you have registered your copyright (distinct from the automatic copyright that attaches at creation), you are entitled to damages up to $150,000 per infringement. If 1,000 people can be proven to have downloaded that movie from you, that would be an unwelcome bill indeed. If 10,000, well then now you're starting to talk about real money.
        tzs 5y ago
        Statutory damages are per work infringed, not per infringement. They are normally from $750-30000 per work infringed. The lower limit can be lowered to $200 if the defendant can prove that they were an innocent infringer (they were not aware and had no reason to believe they were infringing). The defendant has the burden of proof for this. The upper limit can be raised to $150000 if the infringement is "willful". The statute does not define "willful". Courts have taken it to mean reckless disregard. The defendant knew they were infringing and did it anyway. The jury decides where in the range you end up, and they certainly might take into account the magnitude of your infringement so 10000 downloads might cost you more than 1000 by convincing the jury to choose somewhere high from the range, but the cap on the total will be $30k (or $150k if it was willful). Note that this means that willfully distributing 10000000 copies of one movies is going to be a lot better for the defendant than distributing a single copy each of 300 different movies, if the plaintiff elects to ask for statutory damages. The 10000000 copies of one movie is just one work infringed, so you are looking at $150000 worst case. The single copy each of 300 movies is 300 works infringed, so best case (assuming you are not an innocent infringer) is the minimal amount of statutory damages per work, $750, times 300 works = $225000. (But remember that the plaintiff gets to choose between statutory damages and actual damages. If you've distribute 10000000 copies of their movie, they'll probably go for actual damages which could be considerably more than $150000!)
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - elmo2you 5y ago
    I'm definitely not a lawyer/expert on this, even less about Germany specifically, but isn't actual financial damage required for financial compensation? While Stockfish might have suffered damage from ChessBase's behavior, if it can't be clearly specified as monetary damage, I don't really see how they could make money from this. On the other hand, if ChessBase is found (and ruled) to have distributed software illegally, the company and its executives might have another problem. I don't know the specifics of German law, but I believe that distributing software (or any product) illegally is actually a criminal offense (no longer a civil dispute). That could (theoretically/eventually) lead to criminal prosecution and who knows .. jail time?
    - jeremyjh 5y ago
      Step 1. Hire an expensive attorney. Step 2. Sue to recover attorney fees.
      - germanier 5y ago
        In German court proceedings you can only recover attorney fees up to the (pretty low) legal fee schedule (RVG). Anything above that you will have to pay yourselves
        mananaysiempre 5y ago
        GP’s joke, I suspect, was that in practice every bit of money they get from the lawsuit, whether it is labeled “attorney fees” or not, is likely to go towards compensating the legal team, and not to the actual injured party. Which does not contradict your statement. (Part of the point of having a legal fee schedule is, I suppose, to put a damper on the prices of legal help, because, like in medicine, the demand is otherwise extremely inelastic: when you need it, you really need it. That does not appear to work. I wonder if there is an approach that would work.)
        groby_b 5y ago
        The German legal system does put somewhat of a damper on "every bit of money". First, it can only be charged as attorney fees, and if it exceeds the legal schedule, it needs to be very clearly called out as an attorney fee agreement. So "or not" is off the table. Secondly, there is a morality clause with regards to attorney fees, so usurious rates like some US attorneys charge are harder to achieve. This doesn't mean German attorneys are cheap. It's just not quite as out of control as the US legal system. (Though attorney's professional bodies are obviously lobbying to make it easier to charge more) The legal fee schedule does put a damper on attorney work, and more importantly, makes it somewhat easier to predict costs should you need an attorney. If it's enough of a damper is open to interpretation. I
- dheera 5y ago
  Hard to say, very often the sour-cream-and-onion-tiff* cannot afford the same quality of lawyers that the plain-tiff can. * I don't know what the opposite of a plain-tiff is
  - Gaelan 5y ago
    Defendant, for the record, but your term is way better.
  - alisonkisk 5y ago
    Plaintiff and Defendant. Complainant and Respondent
qwertox 5y ago
This will be easily won against ChessBase. They F'd up. German court does care way too much for the "Urheberrecht" -- copyright -- and this is clearly a violation of it. If they would let this go through, nobody would take the German court serious again, and there is too much interest in not letting that happen. In any case, they also sell a music software called "Ludwig 3" [1]. I now wouldn't be surprised if it also makes improper use of OSS libraries. [1] http://www.komponieren.de/arrangieren.html http://www.komponieren.de/arrangieren.html
- MikeDelta 5y ago
  Sounds like a business model.
  - MikeDelta 5y ago
    Not my business model guys, but a business model used by parties out there that decide to misuse open source licenses and charge for basically a layer on top of the open source. If this company has two products that under the hood seem to rely heavily on open source but they don't mention it, then it sounds this is their business model.
- sillysaurusx 5y ago
  I don’t think it will be so easily won: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27900683 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27900683 Note that it’s legal to sell stockfish as long as you’re compliant with GPLv3. ChessBase seems to be compliant. Stockfish argues that ChessBase isn’t compliant because they refuse to release the weights. But this makes no sense; the weights are distributed with every copy of Fat Fritz 2. (Otherwise, how would the program run? It’s not cloud-based, as far as I can tell.) Stockfish may be trying to say “you must open source any training code used to make the weights.” But this claim falls flat; you could use this same argument to say that any GPLv3 codebase must be fully open source in order to sell it, including all DLLs used by the program. Stockfish seems to be saying that they have grounds for lawsuit because they have terminated ChessBase’s license. But GPLv3 doesn’t give you the ability to terminate a license arbitrarily; it requires you meet some specific criteria, and it’s unclear that ChessBase meets it. I think it’s lame that ChessBase sold stockfish for $80. But that’s different than being illegal, and we should worry about the precedents set here.
JJMcJ 5y ago
A number of companies have been nailed over OSS licenses, especially GPL. The losers probably thought the license terms were just some of Stallman's psychodrama and not actual enforceable obligations.

reedciccio 5y ago

IIRC the GPL has been tested in German courts before. Would this be any different from other GPL violation in court like this one https://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_frankfurt/ https://gpl-violations.org/news/20060922-dlink-judgement_fra...?

sbx320 5y ago
Most of the prior GPL cases ruled on (including the one you linked) were about redistribution of modified works without providing source and about who actually has standing to sue regarding GPL violations. This case however brings two new (as far as I'm aware) questions to the table: - Whether the permanent license revocation clause holds up - Whether the neural networks is considered a part of the covered work (and must therefore be provided in "source" form, rather than just a trained network) The second one is especially interesting, since the court will likely have to go into how far the GPLs coverage extends into other parts of a covered work.

dsiegel2275 5y ago

I agree. Likely a quick checkmate in court.

wiz21c 5y ago
Stockfish has an opportunity to make money here. No?
- alexfromapex 5y ago
  It will be interesting, depends where jurisdiction falls and how that jurisdiction interprets any alleged damages since GPL content is normally released free of charge.
  - indymike 5y ago
    Copyright infringement can have large statutory damages that have nothing to do with the actual financial damage from the infringement.
    - yladiz 5y ago
      Case in point, the awards given against people who pirate something like a movie which are completely detached from the actual damage caused by the piracy.
      - DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
        "Deterrent value", apparently.
      - rhizome 5y ago
        Yeah, that's what "statutory damages" means. In the US, if you have registered your copyright (distinct from the automatic copyright that attaches at creation), you are entitled to damages up to $150,000 per infringement. If 1,000 people can be proven to have downloaded that movie from you, that would be an unwelcome bill indeed. If 10,000, well then now you're starting to talk about real money.
        tzs 5y ago
        Statutory damages are per work infringed, not per infringement. They are normally from $750-30000 per work infringed. The lower limit can be lowered to $200 if the defendant can prove that they were an innocent infringer (they were not aware and had no reason to believe they were infringing). The defendant has the burden of proof for this. The upper limit can be raised to $150000 if the infringement is "willful". The statute does not define "willful". Courts have taken it to mean reckless disregard. The defendant knew they were infringing and did it anyway. The jury decides where in the range you end up, and they certainly might take into account the magnitude of your infringement so 10000 downloads might cost you more than 1000 by convincing the jury to choose somewhere high from the range, but the cap on the total will be $30k (or $150k if it was willful). Note that this means that willfully distributing 10000000 copies of one movies is going to be a lot better for the defendant than distributing a single copy each of 300 different movies, if the plaintiff elects to ask for statutory damages. The 10000000 copies of one movie is just one work infringed, so you are looking at $150000 worst case. The single copy each of 300 movies is 300 works infringed, so best case (assuming you are not an innocent infringer) is the minimal amount of statutory damages per work, $750, times 300 works = $225000. (But remember that the plaintiff gets to choose between statutory damages and actual damages. If you've distribute 10000000 copies of their movie, they'll probably go for actual damages which could be considerably more than $150000!)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- elmo2you 5y ago
  I'm definitely not a lawyer/expert on this, even less about Germany specifically, but isn't actual financial damage required for financial compensation? While Stockfish might have suffered damage from ChessBase's behavior, if it can't be clearly specified as monetary damage, I don't really see how they could make money from this. On the other hand, if ChessBase is found (and ruled) to have distributed software illegally, the company and its executives might have another problem. I don't know the specifics of German law, but I believe that distributing software (or any product) illegally is actually a criminal offense (no longer a civil dispute). That could (theoretically/eventually) lead to criminal prosecution and who knows .. jail time?
  - jeremyjh 5y ago
    Step 1. Hire an expensive attorney. Step 2. Sue to recover attorney fees.
    - germanier 5y ago
      In German court proceedings you can only recover attorney fees up to the (pretty low) legal fee schedule (RVG). Anything above that you will have to pay yourselves
      - mananaysiempre 5y ago
        GP’s joke, I suspect, was that in practice every bit of money they get from the lawsuit, whether it is labeled “attorney fees” or not, is likely to go towards compensating the legal team, and not to the actual injured party. Which does not contradict your statement. (Part of the point of having a legal fee schedule is, I suppose, to put a damper on the prices of legal help, because, like in medicine, the demand is otherwise extremely inelastic: when you need it, you really need it. That does not appear to work. I wonder if there is an approach that would work.)
        groby_b 5y ago
        The German legal system does put somewhat of a damper on "every bit of money". First, it can only be charged as attorney fees, and if it exceeds the legal schedule, it needs to be very clearly called out as an attorney fee agreement. So "or not" is off the table. Secondly, there is a morality clause with regards to attorney fees, so usurious rates like some US attorneys charge are harder to achieve. This doesn't mean German attorneys are cheap. It's just not quite as out of control as the US legal system. (Though attorney's professional bodies are obviously lobbying to make it easier to charge more) The legal fee schedule does put a damper on attorney work, and more importantly, makes it somewhat easier to predict costs should you need an attorney. If it's enough of a damper is open to interpretation. I
dheera 5y ago
Hard to say, very often the sour-cream-and-onion-tiff* cannot afford the same quality of lawyers that the plain-tiff can. * I don't know what the opposite of a plain-tiff is
- Gaelan 5y ago
  Defendant, for the record, but your term is way better.
- alisonkisk 5y ago
  Plaintiff and Defendant. Complainant and Respondent

qwertox 5y ago

This will be easily won against ChessBase. They F'd up. German court does care way too much for the "Urheberrecht" -- copyright -- and this is clearly a violation of it. If they would let this go through, nobody would take the German court serious again, and there is too much interest in not letting that happen. In any case, they also sell a music software called "Ludwig 3" [1]. I now wouldn't be surprised if it also makes improper use of OSS libraries. [1] http://www.komponieren.de/arrangieren.html http://www.komponieren.de/arrangieren.html

MikeDelta 5y ago
Sounds like a business model.
- MikeDelta 5y ago
  Not my business model guys, but a business model used by parties out there that decide to misuse open source licenses and charge for basically a layer on top of the open source. If this company has two products that under the hood seem to rely heavily on open source but they don't mention it, then it sounds this is their business model.
sillysaurusx 5y ago
I don’t think it will be so easily won: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27900683 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27900683 Note that it’s legal to sell stockfish as long as you’re compliant with GPLv3. ChessBase seems to be compliant. Stockfish argues that ChessBase isn’t compliant because they refuse to release the weights. But this makes no sense; the weights are distributed with every copy of Fat Fritz 2. (Otherwise, how would the program run? It’s not cloud-based, as far as I can tell.) Stockfish may be trying to say “you must open source any training code used to make the weights.” But this claim falls flat; you could use this same argument to say that any GPLv3 codebase must be fully open source in order to sell it, including all DLLs used by the program. Stockfish seems to be saying that they have grounds for lawsuit because they have terminated ChessBase’s license. But GPLv3 doesn’t give you the ability to terminate a license arbitrarily; it requires you meet some specific criteria, and it’s unclear that ChessBase meets it. I think it’s lame that ChessBase sold stockfish for $80. But that’s different than being illegal, and we should worry about the precedents set here.

JJMcJ 5y ago

A number of companies have been nailed over OSS licenses, especially GPL. The losers probably thought the license terms were just some of Stallman's psychodrama and not actual enforceable obligations.