If its perfectly fine to 'learn from gpl code' This should mean that its perfectly fine to have a llm assist in clean room implementation/reverse engineering.
The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models
281–290 of 314 posts
Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models
#282Earlier quoted context omitted.
This. People conflate consumer to user. A user in the sense of GPL is a programmer or technical person whom the software (including source) is intended for. Not necessarily a “user of an app” but a user of this “suite of source code”.
Except really the whole point is it explicitly and actively makes no distinction. Every random user has 100% of the same rights as any developer or vendor.
A completely level playing field. There's probably never been a more perfect free market than that in free software.
It turns out that most people who say that value free market capitalism never really did.
Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models
#283Great article but I don't really agree with their take on GPL regarding this paragraph: > 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…
The GPL arose from Stallman's frustration at not having access to the source code for a printer driver that was causing him grief. In a world where he could have just said "Please create a PDP-whatever driver for an IBM-whatever printer," there never would have been a GPL. In that sense AI represents the fulfillment of his vision, not a refutation or violation. I'd be surprised if he saw it that way, of course.
The only legal way to do that in the proprietary software world is a clean room implementation.
An AI could never do a clean room implementation of anything, since it was not trained on clean room materials alone. And it never can be, for obvious reasons. I don't think there's an easy way out here.
Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models
#284Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometime, LLMs actually generate copyright headers as well in their output - lol - like in this PR which was the subject of a recent HN post [1] https://github.com/ocaml/ocaml/pull/14369/files#diff-062dbbe... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46039274
So what? I can probably produce parts of the header from memory. Doesn't mean my brain is GPLed.
If you have seen say, for example, the Windows source code, you cannot take certain jobs implementing Windows-compatible interfaces that are supposed to be free from Microsoft IP. One could say your brain has been "infected". The same is true of many things around intellectual property.
Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models
#285Earlier quoted context omitted.
You really try hard to misunderstand it. A small shop has own cctv to catch intruders = one thing. Local company installing cctv everywhere = different thing. In practice they can be both supplied by one company, centralized and unified and sold and fighting ANY cctv is ultimately the winning move. > LLMs exist and nobody can un-exist them now because they're really just code and data "Malware exists and nobody can u…
> A small shop has own cctv to catch intruders = one thing. Local company installing cctv everywhere = different thing. But that's the thing you were implying couldn't be distinguished. Every small shop having its own CCTV is different than one company having cameras everywhere, even if they both result cameras all over the place. > "Malware exists and nobody can unexist it now because it's just code and data" Which…
like LLM or NFT or killer drones, malware isn't bad for somebody. it is always about who it is benefits the most.
> the LLMs that aren't bad
which LLM is not made by stealing copyleft code?
Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
fair use only applies in the united states (and Poland, and a very limited set of others) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#/media/File:Fair_use_... and it is certainly not part of the Berne Convention in almost every country in the world even timeshifting using your VCR and ripping your own CDs is copyright infringement
France and most of europe has fair use ( https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copie_priv%C3%A9e ) but also has a mandatory tax on every sold medium that can do storage to recover the "lost fees" due to fair use
Is that not just an exemption for copying for private use? My french is not up to much but this:
> L'exception de copie privée autorise une personne à reproduire une œuvre de l'esprit pour son usage privé, ce qui implique l'utilisation personnelle, mais également dans le cercle privé incluant le cadre familial.
seems to be only for personal use?
Fair dealing in the UK and other countries is broader, and US fair use broader still.
Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models
#287Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 y…
Virality is a very good feature of GPL and part of what makes it a meaningfully different choice than other open licenses, I don't know why you want attribute that to Microsoft of all places.
I think you need to define what you mean by the term "virality" here, because I don't see how this could be associated with any feature of the GPL, and it's definitely the reason of disagreements in this thread.
Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models
#288Earlier 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
That case has little to do with the license itself and nothing to do with its virality.
I think you need to define what you mean by the term "virality" here, because I don't see how this could be associated with any feature of the GPL, and it's definitely the reason of disagreements in this thread.
Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models
#289Time limit on patents is supportive of GPL in the limit.
Public trading of most trade secrets along with their owner corporations is also GPLish.
Re: The current state of the theory that GPL propagates to AI models
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
Laws exist to protect those who make and have money. If trillions could be made harvesting your kids kidneys it would be legal.
It's done extrajudicially in warzones such as Palestine where hostages are returned from Israeli jails, with missing organs, dead or alive [0]. [0] https://factually.co/fact-checks/justice/evidence-investigat...
If you talking about an organ such as a brain, they went in without one. Such is the curse of cousin marriages, brother. Salam.