71–80 of 450 posts
Glad to learn about SourceHut. I'll check it out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ToS doesn't supercede copyright though, does it? The real rub will be the first court precedent on whether GPTs infringe on source data IP. Could see it going either way: fundamentally transformative or not.
You agree to Microsoft's ToS before you can put any code on Github, regardless of the license. You can't opt-out of those terms, regardless of your license, just as you can't opt out of Facebooks terms which give them the right to use your content for their business or marketing purposes, even if the various chain posts that have spread there might claim otherwise.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No need to hate on you for a valid response. I think we're in a new enough situation that we can look beyond what's legal in a license. When many of us started working on open source projects, AI was a far-off concept. Speaking for myself, I thought we'd see steady improvement in code-completion tools, but I didn't think I'd see anything like GPT-4 in my lifetime. Licenses were written for humans working with code. W…
> Yes, I'm talking explicitly about feelings. I know my feelings don't impact the legalities of a license. They don't impact the current legality of a licence, but it will affect future ones. GPL/BSD/Apache/proprietary, they are all picked for ideological concerns which all stem from feelings. It is good to discuss these things, and it is good to recognise that these are emotionally driven.
Don't they? Even the most liberal licenses require that you at least keep the license and attributions. Which are exactly the parts that AI systems remove. I would have no problem with an AI system trained on GPL code if the output was still covered by the GPL.
I'm gonna get hated on for this, but I don't think "give back" is an open source concept. I'm not aware of any Open Source license,or Free license for that matter,that has a give-back clause. Source code is available to -users- ,not prior-authors. Some Open Source licenses can be used in proprietary code, (MIT, BSD etc) with little more than simple attribution. Those developers chose that license for a reason, and I'…
§5.c of the GPL Version 3 states explicitly:
> You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.
As in, all modifications must be made available. Is that not meeting your definition of giving back? GPL (all variants) is one of the most widely distributed of the free software licenses and has an explicit "give back" clause as far as I can see it. -- and is part of why some people referred to GPL as a "cancer".
FWIW the issue I've come to have with copilot is that you're not explicitly permitted to use the suggestions for anything other than inspiration (as per their terms), there is no license given to use the code that is generated. You do so at your own risk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It shouldn't but good luck fighting the 500 Lbs gorilla on its home turf. Most people will avoid the fight, even if they are in the right.
The ToS is necessary for GitHub to provide their services, the wording is pretty carefully constructed so that GitHub are safe to change their service and develop new things. Loosely speaking "by uploading code you grant GitHub permission to blah blah with that code" I'm not sure how well it will go down in court fighting this... since we agreed to it. But the more interesting question will be is the result a complet…
> The code that was regurgitated by the model is marketed as "AI generated" and available for use for any project you want. Including proprietary ones. It's laundering open-source code. All of the decades of knowledge and uncountable hours of work is being, well, stolen. There is nothing being given back. Leaving GitHub wont change that, OpenAI is training its models on every bit of code they can have, sourcehut, cod…
> And if you want to build a community, you will quickly find out that the majority want to stick to GitHub, and leaving it can kill your projects chances of getting contributions.
That's a defeatist attitude and a self-fulfilling prophecy at the same time. As more and more people leave GitHub (hopefully not to go to the same alternative), it becomes less and less of a must-have. The reason these things are somewhat true today is because of the network effect, and it's precisely that effect which we must actively attempt to squash by leaving.
US copyright office seems to say anything written by AI cannot be copyrighted. Also a work that does not disclose which parts are AI generated cannot be copyrighted. All open source licences and creative commons are based on copyright. If you do not own the copyright you cannot release code under MIT. As far as I can tell no one is labeling which parts of code used AI. Most devs I know are using Chat GPT at least for…
I'm gonna get hated on for this, but I don't think "give back" is an open source concept. I'm not aware of any Open Source license,or Free license for that matter,that has a give-back clause. Source code is available to -users- ,not prior-authors. Some Open Source licenses can be used in proprietary code, (MIT, BSD etc) with little more than simple attribution. Those developers chose that license for a reason, and I'…
then that's a problem- not dissimilar to
^
I'm gonna get hated on for this, but I don't think "give back" is an open source concept. I'm not aware of any Open Source license,or Free license for that matter,that has a give-back clause. Source code is available to -users- ,not prior-authors. Some Open Source licenses can be used in proprietary code, (MIT, BSD etc) with little more than simple attribution. Those developers chose that license for a reason, and I'…