11–20 of 107 posts
Then don't release it. There is no license that can prevent your code from becoming training data even under the naive assumption that someone collecting training data would care about the license at all.
If it’s open source but with an extra restriction then it’s not Open Source: https://opensource.org/osd
You realize that the world changes and we update out language as we go? Saying "we already have a definition" when it's not clear whether it's been considered whether that definition would interact with something which is new, is... I don't even know what word to use. Square? Stupid?
If you release it as GPL or AGPL, it should be pretty difficult to obey those terms while using the code for AI training. Of course, they'll probably scoop it up anyway, regardless of license.
If the courts decide it’s not fair use then OpenAI et al. are going to have some issues.
I had previously been curious about this, and made a post on HN that got limited attention [2], but if you are wanting your software to not be used to create training data for third-party models, it could be a little relevant.
[1]: https://github.com/markqvist/Reticulum?tab=License-1-ov-file...
Plus the US government is pro Big Tech and they will protect them at all cost.
That being said, here's a repo of popular licenses that have been modified to restrict such uses: https://github.com/non-ai-licenses/non-ai-licenses
IANAL, so I can't speak to how effective or enforceable any of those are.
Ignoring the fact that if AI training is fair use, the license is irrelevant, these sorts of licenses are explicitly invalid in some jurisdictions. For example[0],
> Any contract term is void to the extent that it purports, directly or indirectly, to exclude or restrict any permitted use under any provision in
> [...]
> Division 8 (computational data analysis)
Any license that discriminates based on use case would not qualify as open source under the Open Source Initiative definition, nor as free software under the FSF definition. You also shouldn't expect for your project/code to be reused by or incorporated into any free or open-source projects, since your license would be incompatible. You can release software under whatever license you want, though whether any restrict…
You - and many other commentors in this thread - misunderstand the legal theory under which AI companies operate. In their view, training their models is allowed under fair use, which means it does not trigger copyright-based licenses at all. You cannot dissuade them with a license.
Perhaps you can’t dissuade AI companies today, but it is possible that the courts will do so in the future.
But honestly it’s hard for me to care. I do not think the world would be better if “open source except for militaries” or “open source except for people who eat meat” license became commonplace.