71–80 of 314 posts
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn't it be still legal to train on the data due to fair use?
I don't think it's fair use, but everyone on Earth disagree with me. So even with the standard default licence that prohibits absolutely everything, the humanity-1 consider it fair use.
I can see how it pushes the boundary, but I can’t lay out logic that it’s not. The code has been publish for the public to see. I’m always allowed to read it, remember it, tell my friends about it. Certainly, this is what the author hoped I would do. Otherwise, wouldn’t they have kept it to themselves?
These agents are just doing a more sophisticated, faster version of that same act.
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.
But this is all grey area… https://www.authorsalliance.org/2023/02/23/fair-use-week-202...
> The spirit of the GPL is to promote the free sharing and development of software [...] the reality is that they are proceeding in a different vector from the direction of code sharing idealized by GPL. If only the theory of GPL propagation to models walks alone, in reality, only data exclusion and closing off to avoid litigation risks will progress, and there is a fear that it will not lead to the expansion of free software culture.
The spirit of the GPL is the freedom of the user, not the code being freely shared. The virality is a byproduct to ensure the software is not stolen from their users. If you just want your code to be shared and used without restrictions, use MIT or some other license.
> What is important is how to realize the “freedom of software,” which is the philosophy of open source
Freedom of software means nothing. Freedoms are for humans not immaterial code. Users get the freedom to enjoy the software how they like. Washing the code through an AI to purge it from its license goes against the open source philosophy. (I know this may be a mistranslation, but it goes in the same direction as the rest of the article).
I also don't agree with the arguments that since a lot of things are included in the model, the GPL code is only a small part of the whole, and that means it's okay. Well if I take 1 GPL function and include it in my project, no matter its size, I would have to license as GPL. Where is the line? Why would my software which only contains a single function not be fair use?
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.
It isn't the difficult, a license that forbids how the program is used is a non-free software license. "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0)."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure why the FSF or any other organization hasn't released a license like this years ago already.
Because it would violate freedom zero. Adding such terms to the GNU GPL would also mean that you can remove them, they would be considered "further restrictions" and can be removed (see section 7 of the GNU GPL version 3).
You can do whatever you want with the software, BUT you must do a few things. For GPL it's keeping the license, distributing the source, etc. Why can't we have a different license with the same kind of restrictions, but also "Models trained on this licensed work must be open source".
Edit: Plus the license would not be "GPL+restriction" but a new license altogether, which includes the requirements for models to be open.
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.
This is a big difference that already has bit them.
Genuine question: if I train my model with copyleft material, how do you prove I did? Like if there is no way to trace it back to the original material, does it make sense to regulate it? Not that I like the idea, just wondering. I have been thinking for a while that LLMs are copyright-laundering machines, and I am not sure if there is anything we can do about it other than accepting that it fundamentally changes wha…
Genuine question: if I train my model with copyleft material, how do you prove I did? Like if there is no way to trace it back to the original material, does it make sense to regulate it? Not that I like the idea, just wondering. I have been thinking for a while that LLMs are copyright-laundering machines, and I am not sure if there is anything we can do about it other than accepting that it fundamentally changes wha…
your LICENSE matters in similar ways that it mattered before LLMs. LICENSE adherence is part of intellectual property law and practice. A popular engine may be popular, but not all cases at all times. Do not despair!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ideally, Congress would just settle this basket of copyright concerns, as they explicitly have the power to do—and have done so repeatedly in the specific context of computers and software.
What is ideal about getting more shitty laws written at the behest of massive tech companies? Do you think the DMCA is a good thing?
Democracy is the worst system we’ve tried, except for all the others.
(Also: The GPL can only be enforced because of laws passed by Congress in the late ‘70’s and early ‘80’s. And believe you me, people said all the same kinds of things about those clowns in Congress. Plus ça change…)