a community for posting cool tech news you don’t want to sneer at
non-awfulness of tech is not required or else we wouldn’t have any posts
If you Deploy the Program on hardware (consumer electronics, IoT devices, or cloud infrastructure), you must provide "Installation Information." This includes all authorization keys, cryptographic signatures, or passwords required to install and execute modified versions of the Program on that specific hardware.
That clause would make it impossible to deploy the software as it would grant the world access to your systems.
…great!
We distinguish between "Functional" and "Content" output.
I think we really shouldn't have ceded this in the first place. An AI model isn't "output" it's a derivative work full of samples. It should follow the same rules that musicians have to. Only problem is there's been a concerted effort to defang IP for decades led by tech giants and heavily affecting the terminally online software folks who might be expected to care about GPL violations. In this respect the horses have already left and I'm not sure closing the barn door matters.
There's also the issue of enforceability. I could write a license that says 'if you want to use my library in your vibe coded slop you must first submerge your hand in boiling water for no less than ten seconds.' I don't think I'm going to be able to convince a judge that their failure to perform this entitles me to damages. Likewise I suspect that now that the practice is there a license like this isn't going to do anything to giants. The GPL came before anything worth stealing was licensed under it and helped shape the norms.
A more straightforward approach I've seen is a less ambiguous statement I see in books nowadays: this may not be used to train AI. I'd like to see versions of conventional licenses with this specific carveout.
I'll finally note that we have seen an attempt to do something like this before in the form of the AGPL which almost nobody ever uses. Contemplate why.
(Posting this at 01:41 after a very, very full week and with flubrain: take considered potentially faulty on delivery)
I’ve often thought about this specific problem part, and i gotta admit I’m pre-conflicted. Due aforementioned note I haven’t read the license yet (I’ll do in the week and post a reply with thoughts) but from what I’ve observed to date:
And ito a policy having defensive teeth, those are two load bearing pillars that turn out to not even be moth eaten wooden beams but instead rice crispies held together in a sugar glaze
Consider: what if some popular projects had a “if you’re using this in something making >= $thresholdOrPortionCalc, you must support the project with $percentageOfRevenue” clause in licensing? Modulo the payment distribution admit (lol @ modern aml nightmare), would help a ton with the open source funding squeeze. But can you imagine the bleeting (and probably parasitic forking) if that started happening?
Put another way: without copyright and IP reform (into what shape I have only vague suggestions), how far do licenses get us?
(I’m sorry if this sounds extremely negative -afaict with current regulatory climates and where-IP-is-at, it’s the broadstrokes view. Icbw in detail (I expect I am at least in some detail). But I want to be wrong because god this all fucking sucks)