[–] wtch98 2 days ago
[–] semiquaver 2 days ago
Let me refer you to my earlier distinction between things that have happened and things you fear.
[–] amiga386 2 days ago
[–] semiquaver 2 days ago
[–] Artoooooor 2 days ago
[–] origini 3 days ago
Which is different than using the data 1 to 1.
[–] whizzter 2 days ago
Or maybe the FSF is just waiting for everyone using AI code to become hooked and then subpoena every Antrophic/OAI/Codex customer and force the most massive source release in history (If Adobe/MS would file lawsuits vs the Craft apps and with their resources create legal precedent it could create chaos, maybe the only part stopping them right now from filing lawsuits is them realizing it could backfire since they're heavy AI users themselves).
[–] origini 2 days ago
[–] whizzter 2 days ago
I know there was some cases in the past where people swapped licences and changed variablenames,etc but the essential code clearly remained.
[–] origini 2 days ago
Im quite aware of software patents, i never had to use some software patent scanner in our compliance CI/CD.
So it might be a real issue no one can or does enforce?
[–] whizzter 2 days ago
[–] semiquaver 2 days ago
[–] whizzter 2 days ago
So far it seems more cases that have been decided in lower instances or has been settled or gone in the direction of the party with most money for lawyers, still even in those cases there seems to be a slight tilt towards rightsholders.
I'm not saying anything categorically, but if some cases go all the way and towards rightsholders, it could become a real shitshow in the software industry since we've adopted AI so heavily and the non-significatng portion of public GPL licenced code could bite people in the ass.
[–] semiquaver 1 day ago
> I think technically such a model should abide by the licence of the inputs
is vibes baloney.[–] whizzter 15 hours ago
From the page, https://openjdk.org/legal/ai
--------------------------
What are the intellectual-property risks of using generative AI tools?
The Oracle Contributor Agreement (OCA) requires that a contributor own the intellectual property rights in each contribution and be able to grant those rights to Oracle, without restriction. Most generative AI tools, however, are trained on copyrighted and licensed content, and their output can include content that infringes those copyrights and licenses, so contributing such content would violate the OCA. Whether a user of a generative AI tool has IP rights in content generated by the tool is the subject of active litigation.
--------------------------
But they're just Oracle lawyers so it's baloney right?
[–] semiquaver 12 hours ago
> technically such a model should abide by the licence of the inputs, hence all models would probably be GPL
so whether a the weights file of a machine learning model itself can “be” GPL
as a result of including GPL content in its training corpus.That question is a category error because machine learning weights are not copyrightable at all, being mere lists of numbers and facts, the result of a statistical process and not a human creative hand, very much ineligible for copyright protection. They would be protected by trade secret law only, like the coke recipe.
So the GPL, which operates entirely within the domain of copyright law, cannot possibly virally spread from a licensed source code file to a machine learning model which trained on it. That would be a cross species jump. Certainly there could be other legal consequences but in no universe is someone going to jump out and yell gotcha and force OpenAI to personally hand deliver the newly GPLed weights for their frontier model to RMS.
Yes, that's the whole point of the GPL. Use it however you want, but don't restrict the next person