GPL'ed code ≠ public data
What do you think the 'P' in GPL stands for?
Regardless:
1) You don't need a license to look at things. Copyrights reserve very specific rights: Reproduction, creating derivative works, distribution (limited to first sale), performance, display, and in some cases, transmission
2) And data can't be copyrighted.
US IP law is based on a clause in the US Constitution, and is fundamentally bounded in reach.
What do you think the 'L' in GPL stands for?
GPL code ≠ public data
I'm not going to engage in a flame war here. I clearly laid out references to relevant parts of the law: (1) What a license is and is not needed for under US copyright law (2) purpose of the GPL, and (3) distinction between copyright and data rights.
If you have any sort of citation for this nonsense, please post it. Otherwise, I'm checking out here.
When you say that a computer program "looks" at my data, because my code is for public, it means that the owner of the computer program use my code to make derivative work without obeying of my license, which is explicitly forbidden by copyright law.
For example, you cannot pretend that your smartphone is just looking at a copyrighted film in a cinema. Nobody will ever bother to ask your smartphone, what it's doing. Stop pretending that your smartphone can "look at data".
While correct, using protected works in an AI model requires some form of reproduction. In Canada, even the loading of information into RAM is considered a reproduction (although such reproductions may be excluded from infringement under s. 30.71 of the Copyright Act, RSC 1985, c C-42).
> 2) And data can't be copyrighted.
True, but data is often an abstraction of other expressions that are protected by copyright. Additionally, compilations of data and database structures attract different protections in various jurisdictions. E.g. sui generis database rights in the EU.