[whocares2345]

I bet it’s next to impossible to prove copyright in this case. You would need to track down every last contributor and create a legally valid authorship evidence that is recognized under German legal doctrine. I would bet that having a email or even full name in a git repository is certainly not enough. This is exactly why for serious open-source projects that big companies depend on, they always creat a legal body, usually consortium and formally establish legal ownership of rights

[lights0123]

Other way around. Just a single contributor who licensed their changes under the GPL can sue. The fact that it's a larger work doesn't matter, because each contributor's rights were infringed, so they have the right to sue.

[whocares2345]

Come to think of it - I agree. Anyone whose rights where violated can sue. The challenge of proving authorship and copyright still remains. Honestly not sure what if any available options (git commits, file headers) are really recognized. Basically I can claim that it is I that committed the code under a pseudonym that matches someones real name. Also you can find someone’s namesake etc.

[kadoban]

It's more of a technicality than a challenge in the vast majority of cases.

> Basically I can claim that it is I that committed the code under a pseudonym that matches someones real name. Also you can find someone’s namesake etc.

I mean, you can claim obvious falsehoods if you want, but especially doing so in court isn't going to be a good idea.

[tzs]

> I bet it’s next to impossible to prove copyright in this case. You would need to track down every last contributor and create a legally valid authorship evidence that is recognized under German legal doctrine.

I don't see why they would need every last contributor. They only would need the contributors of the specific code that they allege was copied. That Stockfish contains other code by other contributors that may or may not have been copied would not be relevant.