71–80 of 107 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
The GPL requires that all materials to reproduce any derivative work be made available at cost (and all models can reproduce linux kernel GPL data structures, including the private parts, character-by-character). So do I get access to OpenAI's full training data?
Or do I get to make and publish Mickey Mouse cartoons by training an AI on Disney movies then publishing the model output. Hell, I could even make better versions of old Disney movies, competing with half of Disney's current projects!
It seems to me one of these must be true. So which is it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I think OP is shortsighted in their desire for an “open source only for permitted use cases” license, it is entirely possible that training will be found to not be fair use, and/or that making and retaining copies for training purposes is not fair use. 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 problem are "viral" licences. Must the code generated by an AI trained with GPL code be released with a GPL licence? Also, can an AI be trained with the leaked source of Windows(R)(C)(TM)?
I think you mean to ask the question "what are the consequences of such extreme and gross violations of copyright?"
Because they've already done it. The question is now only ... what is the punishment, if any? The GPL requires that all materials used to produce a derivative work that is published, made available, performed, etc. is made available at cost.
Does anyone who has a patch in the Linux kernel and can get ChatGPT to reproduce their patch (ie. every linux kernel contributor) get access to all of OpenAIs training materials? Ditto for Anthropic, Alphabet, ...
As people keep pointing out when defending copyright here: these AI training companies consciously chose to include that data, at the cost of respecting the "contract" that is the license.
And if they don't have to respect licenses, then if I run old Disney movies through a matrix and publish the results (let's say the identity matrix)? How about 3 matrices with some nonlinearities? Where is the limit?
Since copyright law cannot be retroactively changed, any update congress makes to copyright wouldn't affect the outcome for at least a year ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 definit…
As far as I can see, your second link (applies to all EU member states) makes no mention of the OSI whatsoever, and uses a definition that is far briefer and less specific than the OSD.
I cannot evaluate the third link (Germany) as I don't speak German and automatic translation may introduce subtle changes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.…
A trademark is literally a form of IP. Clearly you don't know what you're talking about.
You can read more about this at https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... or https://www.techmonitor.ai/technology/open_source_initiative... among many other sources. Or a much longer blog post from a lawyer who is active on HN: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2020/05/11/Open-Source-Proper...
fwiw, a non-OSI attempt to trademark "open source hardware" was also rejected for the exact same reason. https://opensource.com/law/13/5/os-hardware-trademark-reject...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Laws cannot be changed retroactively. So if AI training is a copyright extension that can only happen starting sometime next year. So the consequences of these companies' choices are already set in stone, even if they're not known yet. The GPL requires that all materials to reproduce any derivative work be made available at cost (and all models can reproduce linux kernel GPL data structures, including the private par…
Training AI is probably not a copyright violation because it never was one to begin with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Depending on how the courts weigh in on the role of fair use in AI training, it's possible that a "copyleft for AI" clause would end up either redundant with the existing GPL, or legally void. It would be crazy complicated to enforce if it does hold water though.