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

61–70 of 314 posts

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

#61

Post by palata »

scotty79 wrote: post #44
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.

But then we would need a way to prove that some code was LLM generated, right?

Like if I copy-paste GPL-licenced code, the way you realise that I copy-pasted it is because 1) you can see it and 2) the GPL-licenced code exists. But when code is LLM generated, it is "new". If I claim I wrote it, how would you oppose that?

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

#62

Post by munchler »

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.

By that logic, humans would also be prevented from “training” on (i.e. learning from) such code. Hard to see how this could be a valid license.

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

#63

Post by jeremyjh »

twoodfin wrote: post #24
zamadatix wrote: post #6

The article goes deep into these two cases deemed most relevant but really there are a wide swath of similar cases all focused around defining sharper borders than ever around what is essentially the question "exactly when does it become copyright violation" with plenty of seemingly "obvious" answers which quickly conflict with each other. I also have the feeling it will be much like Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc…

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?

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

#64

Post by dmezzetti »

myrmidon wrote: post #49
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…

I understand people want to control what happens once they build something. Too often do you see startups go with a permissive model only to go to a more restrictive model once something like that happens. Then it ends up upsetting a lot of people.

I'm of the opinion that what I build, I'm willing to share it and let others use it as they see fit even if it's not to my advantage.

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

#65

Post by omnicognate »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #29
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

That case has little to do with the license itself and nothing to do with its virality.

As I said, that was merely the first of many. And there is no such thing as "virality" - see my answer to the sibling to your comment.

The "enforceability" of the GPL was never in any doubt because it's not a contract and doesn't need to be "enforced". The license grants you freedoms you otherwise may not have under copyright. It doesn't deny you any freedoms you would otherwise have, and it cannot do so because it is not a contract. If the terms of the GPL don't apply to your use then all you have is the normal freedoms under copyright law, which may prohibit it. If so, any "enforcement" isn't enforcement of the GPL. It's enforcement of copyright, and there's certainly no doubt on the enforceability of that.

For the GPL to "fail" in court it would have be found to effectively grant greater freedoms than it was designed to do (or less, resulting in some use not being allowed when it should be, but that's not the sort of case being considered here). It doesn't, and it has repeatedly stood up in court as not granting additional freedoms than were intended.

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

#66

Post by pessimizer »

omnicognate wrote: post #46
zamadatix wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

It's not Microsoft FUD, you're describing the license as viral too, but playing with words. The fact is that if you include GPL'd stuff in your stuff, that assemblage has to conform to the GPL's rules.

You're basically saying "the GPL doesn't go back in time and relicense unrelated code." But nobody was ever claiming it does, and describing it as "viral" doesn't imply that it does. It's "viral" because code that you stick to it has to conform to its rules. It's good that the GPL is viral. I want it to be viral, I don't want people to be able to hide GPL'd code in a proprietary structure.

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

#67

Post by palata »

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 what copyright is. Should I keep open sourcing my code now that the licence doesn't matter anymore? Is it worth writing blog posts now that it will just feed the LLMs that people use? etc.

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

#68

Post by michaelmrose »

justin_murray wrote: post #58
maxloh wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is at least murky, since a lot of pirated material is “publicly available”. Certainly some has ended up in the training data.

It isn't? You have to break the law to get it. It's publicly available like your TV is if I were to break into your house and avoid getting shot.

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

#69

Post by graemep »

kronicum2025 wrote: post #19
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.

A GPL license is a contract in most other countries. Just not US probably.

That part of the article is about US cases, so its US law that applies.

> A GPL license is a contract in most other countries. Just not US probably.

Not just the US. It may vary with version of the GPL too. Wikipedia claims its a civil law vs common law country difference - not sure the citation shows that though.

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

#70

Post by psychoslave »

munchler wrote: post #62
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.

By that logic, humans would also be prevented from “training” on (i.e. learning from) such code. Hard to see how this could be a valid license.

Isn’t it the very reason why we need cleanroom software engineering:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanroom_software_engineering

Post reply on HN