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

The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

shujisado.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 314 posts

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#41

Post by maxloh »

phplovesong wrote: post #25

We need a new license that forbids all training. That is the only way to stop big corporations from doing this.

To my understanding, if the material is publicly available or obtained legally (i.e., not pirated), then training a model with it falls under fair use, at least in the US and some other jurisdictions.

If the training is established as fair use, the underlying license doesn't really matter. The term you added would likely be void or deemed unenforceable if someone ever brought it to a court.

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#42

Post by fouronnes3 »

Orygin wrote: post #37
James_K wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would such a license fall under the definition of free software? Difficult to say. Counter-proposition: a license which permits training if the model is fully open.

My next project will be released under a GPL-like license with exactly this condition added. If you train a model on this code, the model must be open source & open weights

Not sure why the FSF or any other organization hasn't released a license like this years ago already.

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#43

Post by NateEag »

pessimizer wrote: post #35

I might be crazy, and I'd love to hear from somebody who knows about this, but I've been assuming that AI companies have been pulling GPL code out of the training material specifically to avoid this. Corporations have always talked about the virality of GPL, sometimes but not always to the point of exaggeration, you'd think that after getting the proof of concept done the AI companies would be running away at full sp…

If you were a thoughtful, careful, law-abiding business, yes.

I submit the evidence suggests the genAI companies have none of those attributes.

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#44

Post by scotty79 »

phplovesong wrote: post #25

We need a new license that forbids all training. That is the only way to stop big corporations from doing this.

We need a ruling that LLM generated code enters public domain automatically and can't be covered by any license.

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#45

Post by rando77 »

rvnx wrote: post #3

GPL and copyright in general don't apply to billionaires, so pretty much a non-topic. It's just a side cost of doing business, because asking for forgiveness is cheaper and faster than asking for permission.

With an attitude like that they don't

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#46

Post by omnicognate »

zamadatix wrote: post #12
omnicognate wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GPL was tested in court as early as 2006 [1] and plenty of times since. There are no serious doubts about its enforceability. [1] https://www.fsf.org/news/wallace-vs-fsf

I know it's not popular on HN to have anything but supportive statements around GPL, and I'm a big GPL supporter myself, but there is nuance in what is being said here. That case was important, but it's not abojt the virality. There have been no concluded court cases involving the virality portion causing the rest of the code to also be GPL'd, but there are plenty involving enforcement of GPL on the GPL code itself.…

There is no "virality", and the article's use of "propagation" to mean the same thing is wrong. The GPL doesn't "cause" anything to be GPLed that hasn't been explicitly licensed under the GPL by the owner of its copyright. The GPL grants a license to use the copyright material to which it applies. To satisfy the terms of that license for a particular use may require that you license other code under the GPL, but if you don't the GPL can't magically make that code GPLed. You will, however, not be covered by the license so unless your use is permitted for some other reason (eg. fair use or a different license you have been granted) your use of the the original code will be a violation of copyright. All of this has been repeatedly tested in court.

It's sad to see Microsoft's FUD still festering 20 years later.

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#47

Post by NiloCK »

pessimizer wrote: post #35

I might be crazy, and I'd love to hear from somebody who knows about this, but I've been assuming that AI companies have been pulling GPL code out of the training material specifically to avoid this. Corporations have always talked about the virality of GPL, sometimes but not always to the point of exaggeration, you'd think that after getting the proof of concept done the AI companies would be running away at full sp…

Not crazy - there's a rational self-interest in doing this.

But I'm not certain that the relevant players have the same consequence-fearing mindset that you do, and to be honest they're probably right. The theft is too great to calculate the consequences, and by the time it's settled, what are you gonna do - turn off Forster's machine?

I hope you're right in at least some cases!

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#48

Post by pessimizer »

dmezzetti wrote: post #18

[flagged]

As somebody who thinks that people currently own the code that they write, I wonder why you're in people's business who want to write GPL'd software.

Are you complaining about proprietary software? I hear the restrictions are a lot tighter for Photoshop's source code, or iOS's, but for some reason you are one of the people who hate GPL as a hobby. Please don't show up whining about "spirits" when Amazon puts you out of business.

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#49

Post by myrmidon »

dmezzetti wrote: post #18

[flagged]

I had a very similar view once, and have since understood that this is mainly a difference in perspective:

It's easy as a developer to slip into a role where you want to build/package (maybe sell) some software product with minimal obligations. BSD-likes are obviously great there.

But the GPL follows a different perspective: It tries to make sure that every user of any software product is always capable of tinkering and changing it himself, and the more permissive licenses do not help there because they don't prevent (or even discourage!) companies from just selling you stripped and obfuscated binary blobs that put you fully at the vendors mercy.

Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models

#50

Post by graemep »

xgulfie wrote: post #4
graemep wrote: post #2

The article repeatedly treats license and contract as though they are the same, even though the sidebar links to a post that discusses the difference. A lot of it boils down to whether training an LLM is a breach of copyright of the training materials which is not specific to GPL or open source.

And the current norm that the trillion dollar companies have lobbied for is that you can train on copyrighted material all you want so that's the reality we are living in. Everything ever published is all theirs.

I am really surprised that media businesses, which are extremely influential around the world, have not pushed back against this more. I wonder whether they are looking at cost savings that will get from the technology as a worthwhile trade-off.
Post reply on HN