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

61–70 of 107 posts

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

#61

Post by Etheryte »

evanelias wrote: post #51
Etheryte wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OSI definition of open-source software is recognized by several governments worldwide as definitive and legally binding. What you're describing is source available and that's a very different thing.

Which governments? OSI wasn't even granted a trademark for "open source" in the US, the country they are based in.

That makes complete sense though? They don't hold the IP, I don't really see any way they could be granted a trademark on it.

As for the list, see [0].

[0] https://opensource.org/about/authority

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

#62

Post by kstrauser »

pessimizer wrote: post #53
on_the_train wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The didn't redefine the words, they defined them. Anyone using them for anything other than the purposes they were defined to cover is a dishonest parasite who is intending to trade on the goodwill of the people who adhere to OSI's guidelines. "Open Source," capitalized or not, was not a common phrase before they introduced it. I don't care if somebody in 1965 said "I decided I'm going to be open, and share the sourc…

As a personal anecdote, while I’ve heard smart people say they were using “open source” way back when, I had personally never heard it used in any way before starting to used Linux and the BSDs in the late 90s, when OSI came along and people started discussing it in that context.

I can’t say others weren’t using it before then. I can say say that I first heard of Open Source after I’d heard of Free Software.

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

#63

Post by GuB-42 »

pxc wrote: post #10
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…

> 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. Freedom 0 is about the freedom to run the software "for any purpose", not "use" the software for any purpose. Training an LLM on source code isn't running the software. (Not sure about the OSD and don't feel like reviewing it.) Anyway, you coul…

If training AI is a copyright exemption, and it is likely to be the case, then the license is irrelevant.

If it is not then the trained AI is a derivative work, which the license should allow as long as it is publishable under the same license to be considered open source or free software.

In any case, I don't think an anti-AI clause would serve a meaningful purpose on open source software. You can however make your own "source available" license that explicitly prevents its use on AI training, and I am sure that some of them exist, but I don't think it will do much good, as it is likely to be unenforceable (because of copyright exemptions) and will make it incompatible with many things open source.

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

#64

Post by Workaccount2 »

systemtest wrote: post #6

I understand wanting to control how your code is used, that’s completely fair. Most open source licenses, though, are written to permit broad usage, and explicitly prohibiting AI training can be tricky legally. That said, it’s interesting how often AI is singled out while other uses aren’t questioned. Treating AI or machines as “off-limits” in a way we wouldn’t with other software is sometimes called machine prejudic…

The goal is to prevent AI from devaluing SWE work.

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

#65

Post by pessimizer »

talkingtab wrote: post #25

I think it is time that open source => community source. Where community is NOT corporations making tons of money without royalties. And where community is NOT AI. As someone said these are fair uses of Open source. But it would not be fair use of Community Open Source. Many people will reject such an effort for good reason. Open Source is something of great value. But should only Corporations profit from it. Why not…

It's called the GPL, and it's what Open Source was created afterwards to undermine. It would be nice if people just used it, rather than appealing to spirits to make Open Source into what it explicitly is not.

It is already entirely clear that LLMs have absolutely no permission to use GPL code for something that is being redistributed without full source, before they were even invented. AI companies are arguing fair use, as another top level comment emphasizes, in order to make an end run around any licensing at all. Dithering about coming up with magic words that will make the AI go away, or creating new communities while ignoring the original community around the GPL, is just silly.

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

#66

Post by ilaksh »

I think you can write whatever you want in a license. Lawyers and tradition don't have supernatural powers or anything. So you could say something like "Non exclusive non revocable license to use this code for any purpose without attribution or fees as long as that purpose is not for training AI, which is never permissible."

Little to no chance anyone involved in training AI will see that or really care though.

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

#67

Post by pojntfx »

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.

Open Source means OSI-approved license in the software context. Some government examples of this being explicitly mentioned:

- Canada/British Columbia: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/government/services-for-go... - European Union (this applies to all EU member states): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2847/oj/eng - search for "Free and open-source software is understood" in the text - Germany (the EU definition already applies here, but for good measure): https://www.bsi.bund.de/DE/Themen/Verbraucherinnen-und-Verbr...

Words have meaning!

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

#68

Post by techjamie »

If you publish to GitHub, also mind that you grant them a separate license to your code[1] which grants them the ability to do things, including "[...] the right to do things like copy it to our database and make backups; show it to you and other users; parse it into a search index or otherwise analyze it on our servers [...]"

They don't mention training Copilot explicitly, they might throw training under "analyzing [code]" on their servers. And the Copilot FAQ calls out they do train on public repos specifically.[2]

So your license would likely be superceded by GitHub's license. (I am not a lawyer)

[1] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/github-terms/github-t...

[2] https://github.com/features/copilot#faq

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

#69

Post by orphea »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #39
ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #7

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…

  > If you want a term to refer to "open source unless it's for AI use", then coin one
We even have such term already. It's source-available. Nothing necessarily wrong or bad about it. It only requires people to be honest with themselves and don't call code open if it's not.

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

#70

Post by evanelias »

Etheryte wrote: post #61
evanelias wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which governments? OSI wasn't even granted a trademark for "open source" in the US, the country they are based in.

That makes complete sense though? They don't hold the IP, I don't really see any way they could be granted a trademark on it. As for the list, see [0]. [0] https://opensource.org/about/authority

They applied for a trademark and were rejected due to the term being too generic/descriptive. It has nothing to do with whether they hold IP.

That list doesn't appear to be "legally binding" in a general sense; to me, the way you worded that implies "there is a law saying OSD is the definition of open source in this country" which is very far from the case.

Instead that list appears to be specific cases/situations e.g. how some US states evaluate bids from vendors, or how specific government organizations release software. And many things on that list are just casual references to the OSI/OSD but not laws at all.

Post reply on HN