this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2024
26 points (88.2% liked)

Free Software

1076 readers
1 users here now

What is free software?

Free software is software that respects the 4 software freedoms. The 4 freedoms are

Please note: Free software does not relate to monetary price. Free software can be sold or gratis (no cost)

Rules:

  1. Please keep on topic
  2. Follow the Lemmy.zip rules
  3. No memes
  4. No "circle jerking" or inflammatory posts
  5. No discussion of illegal content

Please report anything you believe to violate the rules and be sure to include rhetoric on why you think it should be removed.

If you would like to contest mod actions please DM me with your rational as to why you feel that the relivant mod action should be reversed. Remember to use rhetoric and to site any relevant sources. You will only get one chance to argue your point and continued harassment will result in a ban.

Overall this community is pretty laid back and none if the things list above normally are an issue.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip
26
How can I add a simple requirement "do not train Al on the source code of the program" to AGPLv3 or GPLv3 and thereby create a new license? (lemmy.ml)
submitted 4 weeks ago by JustVik@lemmy.ml to c/freesoftware@lemmy.zip
25 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

How can I add a simple requirement "do not train Al on the source code of the program" to AGPLv3 or GPLv3 and thereby create a new license?

Don't know is it a good place for such a question but I try :).

Why did I come up with such an stupid idea? There have been reported cases where artificial intelligence such as Github Copilot has been trained on many open source and free software projects, and in some cases it can output code snippets from GPL-licensed projects without specifying it. https://www.pixelstech.net/article/1682104779-GitHub-Copilot-may-generate-code-containing-GPL-code

I am not a lawyer, and I do not know where it is better to insert such a requirement. And how to formulate it in the best and correct form.

I understand it maybe complicated to check, to comply with this requirement and it may cause other difficulties, but I still think it can be a useful addition.

How to fit it with the fundamental freedoms of the GPL or it is unfitable?

I understand that this would make the license non-free, since it puts constraints on what the code can be used for. It's sad that it doesn't combine in some way. Maybe change requirements to do not train "closed source AI"(without code and training data of AI model publicly available).

And how can I name it? Is it better to name it without "GPL" If this new license cannot be considered free? NoAIFL or your variants :)?

Is it good to just add a new item?

For example like this:

Additional Clause:
You may not use the source code of this program, or any part thereof, to train any artificial intelligence model, machine learning model, or similar system without explicit written permission from the copyright holder.

or

Section [X]:
Restrictions on AI Training You may not use the source code of this program, or any part thereof, to train any artificial intelligence model, machine learning model, or similar system without explicit written permission from the copyright holder.

What you think about it? Maybe you already know licenses like this?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] RobotToaster@mander.xyz 16 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (4 children)

I understand that this would make the license non-free

You can potentially get around that by just specifying that any AI trained on it is considered a derivative work, and thus must be released under your new license.

That said, it's potentially moot, the argument the AI companies use for training on commercial data and art is that it's fair use under various exemptions.

[–] JustVik@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 weeks ago

That's a good idea. Now I have to think about how to formulate it better and what it will mean. :)

[–] muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 3 points 4 weeks ago

Their argument should theoreticly fail because gpl doesnt just act as a copyright licence but also as a contract iirc.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

That's not up to OP to "specify;" either it already is the case (for everybody) or it isn't, according to the legal definition of "derivative work."

(I take the position that it is, BTW -- AI code generation is massive copyright infringement in general, and a way of laundering copyleft code for proprietary uses in particular.)

[–] prex@aussie.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago

I think so too & have made that point in the past.
Does anyone know of some more legally credible references that agree with us?

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago

Right now there is a huge legal question surrounding copyrighted works and AI. Since the GPL is enforced via copyright it depends on the court rulings around AI.

Basically there lots of unanswered questions at the moment