[encryptluks2]

This isn't a win for open source. As much as I'd like it to be, settlements do nothing for open source aside from maybe give hope to others that the Defendant's felt the need to settle rather than try to argue the legality of their position in court. Winning in court has different meanings. Usually a settlement can be considered a win for the Plaintiff and Defendant together, and prevents more costly litigation for them but does nothing to help people in similar positions when it comes to case law.

[Xylakant]

This case was brought in a German court. There is no case law in Germany - decisions do usually not bind other courts, even lower courts (unless you're at the highest possible level, Bundesgerichtshof or the constitutional court). This settlement comes with pretty harsh conditions and pointing to it can be useful as a deterrence.

[Vt71fcAqt7]

>There is no case law in Germany - decisions do usually not bind other courts, even lower courts

So is there just a really big rule book? How is legality decided?

[Xylakant]

By a law, so by a really big rule book. Laws need to be written and brought into effect by the legislature.

Courts only interpret laws, they can’t make one (except for the constitutional court that can make decisions with law-like quality that have direct binding effect)

Now, lawyers and courts often look at how other courts decided in similar cases and point to those decisions and the legal reasoning laid out by the court, but it is common that even even the higher levels of courts disagree on a subject.

Even higher court decisions have no binding effect in other cases to other courts, including lower courts. It’s not uncommon that lower courts diverge from decisions of their direct appeal courts - the Landgericht Hamburg is pretty notorious for having its decisions in press matters regularly overturned on appeal.

[white_dragon88]

Versus the bias of one judge colouring how law should be decided? Judges are supposed to interpret the law, not create it. A strong legislative framework and collaborative atmosphere between the legal and political communities should remove the need for something like case law.

[encryptluks2]

That already exists. Higher courts decisions then become considerations on appeal. Usually the decisions aren't just biased either but based on previous congressional rules and law, but there are a lot of times where congresses rules are ambiguous or lacking and has become so ineffective that justices have no choice but to make a ruling or leave people vulnerable.

[anticensor]

Case law still exists in civil law systems. But it is merely persuasive, unlike in common law systems that have a binding case law.

[littlestymaar]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)

[new2yc]

- Giving attribution to the source, e.g., by confuscating a GPL copy into the manual, when you are making the most money in the chess 'product' scene on a ripped Stockfish, is the least they could have done.

- Chessbase's CEO on their official blog (now deleted) stated that they developed the engine from scratch. They also took a newer version for ripoff and compared it to an older version of Stockfish to claim their Fat Fritz 2/Houdini 6 engines are powerful.

- However lousy their terms are, free software licenses are enforceable by law. It will set an example. Since we are on the topic of chess, a threat is always more assertive than execution. Big tech joined FOSS forces for one simple reason - they could lose more than they could win.

- Stockfish did not suffer significant monetary damage since they don't have a commercial product people already insinuated that there would be no extraordinary financial settlement.

> need to settle than argue the legality It is a vague and circumstantial argument. In practical terms, since it's already been ~1.5 years, a settlement (1-year leverage + entire credit + foss.chessbase.com + GPL enforcement) is enough for the plaintiff. Also, the only time the defendant in a lawsuit agrees to settle out of court is when they expect the trial to be more expensive than the settlement. Generally, this happens when the plaintiff's case is so strong that the defendant is confident the plaintiff will win in court. I agree with the no-one-sided landslide victory; that's what settlement means. Would you not say, given the settlement terms, Stockfish (GPL enforcement) won? The entire open-source community base those enforcements.

I see this as an absolute win.

Plus, some money would be even better. Agreed.

[TylerE]

arguably winning a settlement like this is worse than doing nothing as it has minimal fangs and no direct benefit - but you’re out the hassle, time, fees, lawyer costs…

[cies]

Exactly. This is really nastly. The good guys "win", but the bad guys made money off the good guys and they are not even required to pay them the profits...

This is a win for crony capitalist practices in software, signalling: don't worry your profits are protected!

Disgusting.