3 ms·

From the article: "developers of Stockfish have terminated their GPL license with ChessBase permanently" https://www.debian.org/social_contract https://www.de

From the article: "developers of Stockfish have terminated their GPL license with ChessBase permanently" https://www.debian.org/social_contract https://www.debian.org/social_contract states: "The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons." Thus, is Stockfish no longer DSFG?

detaro 5y ago
That doesn't make any sense, given that they didn't change anything about the license, and the termination clauses are part of it.
yoyoplayer 5y ago
Here's some more on this: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7190/gpl-exceptions-that-only-apply-to-certain-individuals https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7190/gpl-exce... Q14 on https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html https://debian-legal.debian.narkive.com/HciZR18l/nmap-licensing-claims https://debian-legal.debian.narkive.com/HciZR18l/nmap-licens... My impression is that enacting the termination clause of GPL makes Stockfish non-DSFG. If the Stockfish developers believe a party has broken the terms of a license, they can do any of: * enact the termination clause, and thus make Stockfish non-DSFG * raise a court case against the party for breach of license The Stockfish developers happen to have done both.
- yoyoplayer 5y ago
  http://cardozolawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/GREENBAUM.37.4.pdf http://cardozolawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/GREEN... states: "Notwithstanding this literal understanding of the license terms, the harshest constructions of the termination provisions of the GPL have not been enforced in practice." Even if it was tested in one jurisdiction, it might not apply in others.
aliswe 5y ago
The license itself may not discriminate, but they may issue (and subsequently revoke) the license to whom they will. It's like some companies licensing with AGPL and then issuing LGPL or even proprietary licenses to whoever pays them for it (so they can use it in their projects at their own discretion).
- yoyoplayer 5y ago
  I see "The license itself may not discriminate, but they may issue (and subsequently revoke) the license to whom they will." meets the letter-of-DFSG but does it meet the spirit? If I choose to grant a GPL license to only green-eyed people, would that meet DFSG's defintion of non-discrimination? By your argument, yes: the license itself is not discrimination. Yet I do not think that meets the spirit of DFSG.
  - aliswe 5y ago
    Yeah I fully agree with you - it's very strange but apparently this is common practice

detaro 5y ago

That doesn't make any sense, given that they didn't change anything about the license, and the termination clauses are part of it.

yoyoplayer 5y ago

Here's some more on this: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7190/gpl-exceptions-that-only-apply-to-certain-individuals https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/7190/gpl-exce... Q14 on https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html https://debian-legal.debian.narkive.com/HciZR18l/nmap-licensing-claims https://debian-legal.debian.narkive.com/HciZR18l/nmap-licens... My impression is that enacting the termination clause of GPL makes Stockfish non-DSFG. If the Stockfish developers believe a party has broken the terms of a license, they can do any of: * enact the termination clause, and thus make Stockfish non-DSFG * raise a court case against the party for breach of license The Stockfish developers happen to have done both.

yoyoplayer 5y ago
http://cardozolawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/GREENBAUM.37.4.pdf http://cardozolawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/GREEN... states: "Notwithstanding this literal understanding of the license terms, the harshest constructions of the termination provisions of the GPL have not been enforced in practice." Even if it was tested in one jurisdiction, it might not apply in others.

aliswe 5y ago

The license itself may not discriminate, but they may issue (and subsequently revoke) the license to whom they will. It's like some companies licensing with AGPL and then issuing LGPL or even proprietary licenses to whoever pays them for it (so they can use it in their projects at their own discretion).

yoyoplayer 5y ago
I see "The license itself may not discriminate, but they may issue (and subsequently revoke) the license to whom they will." meets the letter-of-DFSG but does it meet the spirit? If I choose to grant a GPL license to only green-eyed people, would that meet DFSG's defintion of non-discrimination? By your argument, yes: the license itself is not discrimination. Yet I do not think that meets the spirit of DFSG.
- aliswe 5y ago
  Yeah I fully agree with you - it's very strange but apparently this is common practice