Lawsuits based on code licensing for example.
Scraping websites containing source code which is distributed with specific licenses that OpenAI & co don't follow.
Scraping websites containing source code which is distributed with specific licenses that OpenAI & co don't follow.
One can train a model exclusively on source code from the linux kernel (GPL) and then generate a bunch of C programs or libraries from that. And they could publish them under MIT license as long as they don't reproduce any identifiable sections from the linux kernel. It does not matter where the model learned how to program.
If I write code with a license that says that using this code for AI training is forbidden then OpenAI is directly going against this by scraping websites indiscriminately.
There is a reason why it is generally advised to go with the established licenses and not invent your own, similarly to how you should not roll your own cryptography: Because it most likely won't work as intended.
e.g. License: This comment is licensed under my custom L*a license. Any user with an username starting with "L" and ending in "a" is forbidden from reading my comment and producing replies based on what I have written.
... see?
Sorry, but the onus is on OpenAI to read the licenses not the creator.
And throwing your hands in the air and saying "oh you can't do that in a license" is also of little use.
A license (copyright law) is not a contract (contract law). Simply publishing something does not make the whole world enter into a contract with you. Others first have to explicitly agree to do so.
> Sorry, but the onus is on OpenAI to read the licenses not the creator.
They can ignore it because they never agreed to it in the first place.
> And throwing your hands in the air and saying "oh you can't do that in a license" is also of little use.
It is very useful to know what works and what does not. That way you don't trick yourself and your work to be safe, don't get caught by surprise if you are in fact not and can think of alternatives instead.
BTW, a thing you can do (which CaptainFever mentioned) and lots of services do because licenses are so weak is to make people sign up with an account and have them enter a ToS agreement instead.
They did by accessing and copying the code. Same as a human cloning a repository and using it's content or someone accessing a website with Terms of Use.
No signed contract is needed here.
By default, copying is disallowed because of copyright. Your license provides them a right to copy the code, perhaps within certain restrictions.
However, sometimes copying is allowed, such as fair use (I covered this in another comment I sent you). This would allow them to copy the code regardless of the license.
> Same as a human cloning a repository and using it's content or someone accessing a website with Terms of Use.
I've covered the cloning/copying part already, but "I agree to this ToS by continuing to browse this webpage" is called a clickwrap agreement. Its enforceability is dubious. I think the LinkedIn case showed that it only applied if HiQ actually explicitly agreed to it by signing up.