4 ms·
> ChessBase charges for the software, which means they're either not compliant with the terms of GPL, or there's some other aspect of the software they're not o
by dmurray 5y ago
> ChessBase charges for the software, which means they're either not compliant with the terms of GPL, or there's some other aspect of the software they're not obligated to share.
It's very clear from the story that it's the first one: they're not compliant with the GPL. At least that's what the Stockfish authors are claiming. They're pretty obviously acting in good faith and appear to be correct in their claim. ChessBase haven't laid out their side of the story other than their marketing materials saying "we developed the software in house and it's better than that open source stuff" and I wouldn't expect them to have a defence based on anything other than technicalities. You won't be seeing a blog post from them, because their lawyers have told them to say nothing.
- jimmytucson 5y agoIt’s very clear that Stockfish _claims_ ChessBase violated the terms of the license (and by corollary, ChessBase claims they didn’t) but it’s not at all clear who’s right until the litigation process plays out. One thing I will say is the perceived superiority of ChessBase’s fork (“better than the open source stuff” as you say) has no bearing on either claim.