A nice gesture, but let’s be honest, the system is corrupt and won’t care. The real way to fight is to use AI to opensource all proprietary software out there and watch them squeal.
No. Using fire to fight fire makes more fire. Never use generative AI, for any reason.
Based
I really don’t understand why someone would use a permissive license in the first place. Especially a project this big.
Permissive licenses are what everyone should strive toward. A world where we can share advancements and technologies freely with one another and innovate based on the prior work of others is a world where a shit load of cool stuff gets done. The issue arises when bad faith actors take advantage of it and act against the spirit of collaboration. The problem isn’t caused by the permissive license, but by the bad actor, and the latter is what should be addressed
A world where we can share advancements and technologies freely with one another and innovate based on the prior work of others is a world where a shit load of cool stuff gets done.
And how does a copyleft license get in the way of that? On the contrary, with the GPL, I can be sure that the technology and code will be freely shared. Freely as in freedom, that’s the whole point.
I misunderstood your initial point, I thought you were speaking against permissive/copyleft licenses generally. We agree with one another. Except in the “I can be sure that the technology and code will be freely shared” because just as bad actors can abuse a permissive license, bad actors (see: companies with enough money to just squash the legal case) can simply ignore a copyleft license. I think we 99% agree though and I love copyleft.
Permissive is the opposite of copyleft. Permissive is “here’s my code, do whatever the fuck you want”, copyleft is “here’s my code, you may use it but if your derivative work is available to other people then I dictate how it must be licensed”
because just as bad actors can abuse a permissive license, bad actors
You are right, but with copyleft you at least have legal mechanisms to force the company to comply with the license. With MIT or BSD there aren’t any, because permissive licences don’t enforce any such restrictions.
I think we 99% agree though and I love copyleft.
Yup. And I love copyleft too.
Isn’t AI and already rendering those licenses moot? AI data sets don’t care what type of license the code it scraped caries. and probably most AI code being generated for private companies is based on non-permissive licenses. yet nothing can be done about it.
I think the answer is “yes”.
This feels like a token response to a systemic unsolvable problem.
The article says itself talks about having models launder code so it can’t be considered a copy of the source.
to look at it another way: since anything an llm spits out is public domain, whoever commanded it do so is automatically in breach of the gpl unless they can show evidence that there is no copyleft material in the training data at all.
If you can compare the code and it matches you probably have a good case if the AI user can’t demonstrate it’s not coming from you.
There’s different kinds of datasets. Some respect, select and disclose licenses, others do not.
Some model trainers use any data they can, others are selective on what they train on.
It can also be a decision on principle rather than current or future enforcability. If you say “don’t copy this” and someone blatantly does, the morality is clearer than if you didn’t specifically say that.
There’s also a question of how court rulings and law may change the situation of enforcability and usage/ignorance risk.
MIT requires attribution too. GPL is, at the very least, a stronger statement of intention and demand. It can also be seen as protest or indication of a broader move of corporate AI exploitation leading to damage to the whole FOSS ecosystem, with additional restrictions being applied. Corps that would use AI now can’t use the MIT product anymore like before.
First, you can’t even compare the code if you don’t have access to it, you don’t have access to google’s or facebook’s code.
Second who can even legally challenge entities with pockets as deep as the ocean.
Third courts will probably classify AI generated code based of non-permissive licenses as fair use, so It’s a lost cause anyway.
Nothing is set. Until there’s a challenge in court, all you stated as certainties are just conjectures.
In a perfect world we wouldn’t even need licenses, or just use BSD style ones, but alas… And thus moving to a copyleft license is the best move for sure.
AI bubble has shown that if you don’t have billions of dollars for lawyers, your IP will be copied and compressed into an LLM and you won’t be able to do anything about it, regardless of license. But at least Apple won’t be able to profit from Asahi team work and BSDs won’t be able to use drivers from Asahi. So much winning.
Apple is an asshole company, if they wanted community contribution for their drivers, they could’ve made their stuff open, now they can go fuck off, full stop
It would be interesting to see whether the BSD community finds a way to keep working with Asahi under the new terms.
They could go GPL too. :)
Asahi dual-licensing would be difficult, because then it’d be out there as MIT or BSD, which they don’t want. The BSD using custom-licensed parts - the BSD projects probably don’t want that.
“Sad to see Asahi out there burning bridges for no reason… relicensing m1n1 and drivers under GPL2-or-later, seemingly without the consent of all prior contributors, under the guise of “defending against AI bad actors”, seems entirely disingenuous and misguided.”
“no reason” but there’s reasons anyway and those are “entirely disingenuous and misguided”
Too bad [their] twitter posts don’t go into actual arguments. Why is it supposedly disingenuous? Why misguided? Are there better alternatives? Probably not.
I am not entirely sure why the GPLv2 license wouldn’t work for the BSDs, but either way I doubt that the problem was so big that it really required a license change. Everything in life is a trade-off, and I think the trade-off of not supporting the BSDs to prevent potential bad faith actors from “stealing the code without attribution” is a really bad trade-off.
I am not entirely sure why the GPLv2 license wouldn’t work for the BSDs,
The GPL is a copyleft license. Derivative and combined works must be published under the same license.
You can use BSD with GPL and then publish as GPL, but you can not publish as BSD.
I understand that the licenses are different. What I dont understand is why the BSD operating systems cannot make use of Asahi if it is GPL licensed instead of MIT licensed.
deleted by creator
