Nothing wrong with a GPL-like viral license for the AI era.
Training on my code / media / other data? No worries, just make sure the weights and other derived artifacts are released under similarly permissive license.
Training on my code / media / other data? No worries, just make sure the weights and other derived artifacts are released under similarly permissive license.
At least in the US.
Quite what happens if another country ordered, say chatGPT, to be released under the AGPL since it was trained on AGPL code, who knows.
He's also 72, we can't expect him to save everyone. We need new generations of FOSS tech leaders.
Something about Richard stallman really is out of this world where he made people care about Open source in the first place.
I genuinely don't know how people can relicate it. I had even tried and gone through such phase once but the comments weren't really helpful back then on hackernews
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45558430 (Ask HN: Why are most people not interested in FOSS/OSS and can we change that)
> user freedom, not creators freedom
In his view users are the creators and creators are the users. The only freedom he asks you to give up is the freedom to limit the freedom of others.
I love FOSS, don't get me wrong. But people should be able to say: I made this, if you want to use it, it's under these condition or I won't share it.
Again, imho the GPL is a blessing for humanity, and bless the people that choose it freely.
Don't bless the people that think you are evil for not applying the GPL to your creation.
This is not true, though. As a copyright holder, you are allowed to license your work however you wish, even if it's under for example GPL-3.0-or-later or whatever. You can license your code outside of the terms of the GPL to a particular user or group of users for example for payment.
Really, it's only when the user agrees to abide by the license that you'd have to give access to source code when asked, for example.
> I love FOSS, don't get me wrong. But people should be able to say: I made this, if you want to use it, it's under these condition or I won't share it.
And they can. Whether that wins one any friends or not is another matter.
Creators are not creators, they're also users. There's a very solid chance that a better world for everyone would be achieved if freedoms for all users would be bullet proof. Every user should be able to modify and repair all their hardware and software without creator involvement.
Sure, we can copy software, so it's not like they are taking your house. But "they" may be taking your livelihood.
Ok, objectively perhaps the world would be better, but we can't know. And opinions don't mean anything. What matters is individuals and being fair to them, whatever society grows from that is just what we have.
That said, if we ever go multi-planet, and there is a planet with no copyright and everything is GPL, I'd check it out and imagine I'd feel quite at home there.
With GenAI that's starting to happen with anyway.
The only way forward is the abolishment of copyright.
Similarly, I could imagine carving out an exception when training on copyrighted material without licence, as long as the resulting model is open-sourced.
Training is fair use. The closed models wouldn't be impacted. Even if we assume laws gets changed and lawsuits happened, they just get settled and the closed source models would progress as usual (see Bartz v. Anthropic).
Meanwhile if somebody wants to go all "GPL AI" and only train their models on GPL compatible code, they'd just be restricting themselves. The amount of code they can train on shrinks drastically, the model quality ends up being garbage and nothing was won.
Further, assuming laws got changed, those models would now be incredible easy to attack, since any slip up in the training means the models need to be scraped. Unlike the big companies with their closed models, Open Source efforts do not have the money to license data nor the billions needed to settle lawsuits. It would mean the end of open models.