Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Anti-AI Open Source License?

news.ycombinator.com

101–107 of 107 posts

Re: Ask HN: Anti-AI Open Source License?

#101
post #3

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…

It would not be discrimination to mandate that weights of any model trained in the code need to be released under similarly open license.

Re: Ask HN: Anti-AI Open Source License?

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A random "initiative" does not have the power to redefine words. If the source is available, it's open source.

Not all phrases’ meanings are derivable from the literal definitions of the words that make them up.

But this one definitely is!

Re: Ask HN: Anti-AI Open Source License?

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s an important point and one I’ve thought about a bit. If a human reads my code, then the next time they have to write similar code of their own, mine might be kicking around in the back of their head as an example (or maybe a counterexample if they think my implementation was awful; that’s at least equally likely). I’ve learned to code by reading what others wrote. I mean, my first exposure to code was typing i…

If I see a human copying me, I know for a fact at least one person was impacted by what I do. Even if that person never acknowledges me publicly, or forgets I even exist, I know for a fact that what I did meant something. Scrapers gobble everything up. Good, bad, memorable, non-memorable. Doesn't matter. I don't know, maybe one day I'll make a small piece of code that changes how an AI behaves (profoundly, by being i…

That makes sense. I don't personally see it quite that way, but understand why you and others might.

Re: Ask HN: Anti-AI Open Source License?

#106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> 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? The word you're looking for is "correct". The definition doesn't change just because circumstances do. If you want a term to refer to "open source unless it's for AI use", then coin one, don't misuse an ex…

> The definition doesn't change just because circumstances do.

Absolutely does, that's exactly something that languages do.

Re: Ask HN: Anti-AI Open Source License?

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I see a human copying me, I know for a fact at least one person was impacted by what I do. Even if that person never acknowledges me publicly, or forgets I even exist, I know for a fact that what I did meant something. Scrapers gobble everything up. Good, bad, memorable, non-memorable. Doesn't matter. I don't know, maybe one day I'll make a small piece of code that changes how an AI behaves (profoundly, by being i…

That makes sense. I don't personally see it quite that way, but understand why you and others might.

That's fascinating! What compels you to not value that phenomena?
Post reply on HN