Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Anti-AI Open Source License?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 107 posts

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

#41

Post by kstrauser »

alhirzel wrote: post #15

If you are talking about having the copyrighted source code not be used to train an AI, you could look at the discussions surrounding a recent license change in the Reticulum project [1]. 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]:…

It’s an interesting idea, but not open source, and IMO not particularly useful. It says the software can’t be used to harm humans. Folks, this is why philosophy is a required course. What does it mean to harm someone? Is using it to help someone get an abortion harmful? Is using it to make a self-defense weapon harmful? Is using it to automate a beer brewery harmful? Yes, if you’re anti-abortion, a pacifist, or a tea-totaler. No, if you’re not.

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

#42

Post by hkt »

CrazyStat wrote: post #14
max-privatevoid wrote: post #5

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.

The legal premise of training LLMs on everything ever written is that it’s fair use. If it is fair use (which is currently being disputed in court) then the license you put on your code doesn’t matter, it can be used under fair use. If the courts decide it’s not fair use then OpenAI et al. are going to have some issues.

Presumably the author is working on the basis that it is not fair use and wants to license accordingly.

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

#43

Post by bob1029 »

It might be more useful to probe into specifically why you do not want your code to be used to train AI.

I don't have any good answers for the ideological hard lines, but others here might. That said, anything in the bucket of concerns that can be largely reduced to economic factors is fairly trivial to sort out in my mind.

For example, if your concern is that the AI will take your IP and make it economically infeasible for you to capitalize upon it, consider that most enteprises aren't interested in managing a fork of some rando's OSS project. They want contracts and support guarantees. You could offer enterprise products + services on top of your OSS project. Many large corporations actively reject in-house development. They would be more than happy to pay you to handle housekeeping for them. Whether or not ChatGPT has vacuumed up all your IP is ~irrelevant in this scenario. It probably helps more than it hurts in terms of making your offering visible to potential customers.

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

#44

Post by limagnolia »

1) Software licenses are generally about copyright, though sometimes contain patent licensing provisions. Right now, there is significant legal debate on if training LLMs violates copyright or is fair use.

2) Most OSS licenses require attributeion, something LLM code generation does not really do.

So IF training an LLM is restrctable by copyright, most OSS licenses practically speaking are incompatible with LLM training.

Adding some text that specifically limits LLM training would likely run afould of the open source definitions freedom from discrimination principle.

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

#45

Post by dkdcio »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #32
dkdcio wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that would be “source available” software, and it’s not a random initiative there is disagreement on exactly what “open source” means, but generally clear boundaries between open source and source available software in licensing and spirit of the given project. e.g. MIT and Apache 2.0 are open source, BSL is source available. edit: PERSONALLY, I think if you don’t welcome outside contributions, it isn’t open source;…

> if you don’t welcome outside contributions, it isn’t open source That isn't true. Open source refers to the ability to make use of the source code if you wish, not the ability to send pull requests. SQLite is open source (public domain even!), but does not accept contributions from outside.

argh I will re-edit my comment…sorta covered by the “disagreement” bit, and I disagree on this point (it’s not open to me if you don’t openly accept contributions), but you are right

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

#46

Post by chrisoverzero »

on_the_train wrote: post #19
mod50ack wrote: 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…

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.

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

#47

Post by dkdcio »

evanelias wrote: post #38
dkdcio wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that would be “source available” software, and it’s not a random initiative there is disagreement on exactly what “open source” means, but generally clear boundaries between open source and source available software in licensing and spirit of the given project. e.g. MIT and Apache 2.0 are open source, BSL is source available. edit: PERSONALLY, I think if you don’t welcome outside contributions, it isn’t open source;…

> it’s not a random initiative Arguably it is, in the sense that they didn't actually invent the term; there are many documented pre-OSI uses (including by high-profile folks like Bill Joy) saying "open source" to just mean "source available". And OSI's attempt to trademark the term was rejected. > if you don’t welcome outside contributions, it isn’t open source That isn't even part of the OSI's definition, so what a…

> That isn't even part of the OSI's definition, so what are you basing this on?

edited my comment —- that is my personal belief/definition

I did mention there’s disagreement —- I haven’t read up on the history and whatnot myself in a while. will have to do some re-reading :)

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

#48

Post by [deleted] »

pera wrote: post #16

Given that Big Tech is training AI on copyrighted material downloaded from shadow library torrents it's safe to assume that they don't care about licenses at all. Plus the US government is pro Big Tech and they will protect them at all cost.

[deleted]

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

#49

Post by dkdcio »

on_the_train wrote: post #35
dkdcio wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that would be “source available” software, and it’s not a random initiative there is disagreement on exactly what “open source” means, but generally clear boundaries between open source and source available software in licensing and spirit of the given project. e.g. MIT and Apache 2.0 are open source, BSL is source available. edit: PERSONALLY, I think if you don’t welcome outside contributions, it isn’t open source;…

Open source means the source is open, ie downloadable. It's not that complicated, that can't just be made up to mean something else

it’s not made up (well all language is made up but I digress), you’re just being flagrantly ignorant of the terms you’re using and their history. you can easily go read up on open source vs source available and the history of the terms/licenses

it’s also fine by me if you want to have your own definition; see other comments, I don’t personally 100% agree with OSI’s definition myself

Post reply on HN