91–100 of 314 posts
Earlier 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
Most commonwealth countries have fair dealing, which is similar although slightly different https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing
(which is the linch-pin of the sloppers)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think the GPL mainly suffers with startups because it makes monetization pretty difficult. Some "commercial" uses of it are also giving it somewhat of an undeserved bad taste (when companies use it to benefit from free contributions while preventing competitors from getting any use out of it). My view is that every project and library where I can peruse the source is a gift/privilege. GPL restrictions I view as a s…
I honestly think that the most extreme take that " any output of an LLM falls under all the copyright of all its training data" is not really defensible, especially when contrasted with human learning, and would be curious to hear conflicting opinions. My view is that copyright in general is a pretty abstract and artificial concept; thus corresponding regulation needs to justifiy itself by being useful , i.e. encoura…
Its all about whose outcomes are optimized.
Of course, the law generally favors consideration of the outcomes for the massive corporations donating hundreds of millions of dollars to legislature campaigns.
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…
On the other side, I deeply believe in the values of free software. My general stance is that all applications I open source are GPL or AGPL, and any libraries I open source are MIT. For the libraries, obviously anyone is free to use them, and if they want to rewrite them with an LLM more power to them. For the applications though, I see that as a violation of the license.
At the end of the day, I have competing values and needs and have to make a choice. The choice I've made for now is that for the vast majority of things, I'm still open sourcing them. The gift to humanity and the guarantee to the users freedom is more important to me than a theoretical threat. The one exception is anything that is truly a risk of getting lifted and used directly by competitors. I have not figured out an answer to this one yet, so for now I'm keeping it AGPL but not publicly distributing the code. I obviously still make the full code available to customers, and at least for now I've decided to trust my customers.
I think this is an issue we have to take week by week. I don't want to let fear of things cause us to make suboptimal decisions now. When there's an actual event that causes a reevaluation, I'll go from there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
As opposed to waiting for uncertain court cases (based on the existing shitty laws) to play out for years, ultimately decided by unelected judges? 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
Freedom 0 is not violated. GPL includes restrictions for how you can use the software, yet it's still open source. 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 licen…
I suggest a careful reading of the GNU GPL, or the definition of Free Software, where this is carefully explained.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)."
Running the program and analyzing the source code are two different things...?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honest question: why don’t you think it is 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 versio…
Before LLMs programmers had pretty good intuition what GPL license allowed for. It is of course clear that you cannot release a closed source program with GPL code integrated into it. I think it was also quite clear, that you cannot legally incorporate GPL code into such a program, by making changes here and there, renaming some stuff, and moving things around, but this is pretty much what LLMs are doing. When humans…
I think this is the part where we disagree. Have you used LLMs, or is this based on something you read?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you don't like the license, then don't accept it. You are then restricted by copyright just like with any other creation. If I include the source code of Windows into my product, I can't simply choose to re-license it to say public domain and give it to someone else, the license that I have from Microsoft to allow me to use their code won't let me - it provides restrictions. It's just as "viral" as the GPL.
I like the GPL. I just don't know how much you can actually enforce it. Also, "don't use my code" is not viral. If you break the MSFT license, you pay them, which is a very well-tested path in courts. The idea of forced public disclosure does not seem to be.
If the GPL license didn't exist, and instead you just relying on copyright, then that's an injunction. You have to stop using the code you "stole" and pay reparations.
In UK law, if you distribute copyright material in the course of a business you can be facing 10 years in prison and an unlimited fine.
Sure you can't get them to agree to the GPL, they could simply stop distributing and then turn up to their stint in prison and massive fine. In reality I suspect they would take the easy way out and comply with the license.