Soatok Dreamseeker
soatok@furry.engineer
Is there a GPLv3 / AGPL variant that excludes GenAI use cases from the scope of its public license?
3
0
0
Soatok Dreamseeker
soatok@furry.engineer
@charlotte Categorically, restricting a use makes it not open source, but someone has to have written one by now
0
0
0
@soatok I don't believe that's relevant.
Licenses can't disallow it because GenAI trainers' legal basis is their claim that it is fair use.
And if a court finds it not to be fair use (and good luck with that, given that big money would defend it), then models and their output would need to be GPL/AGPL, which would probably make them unpalatable to these companies anyway.
1
0
0
Soatok Dreamseeker
soatok@furry.engineer@val I don't mean "you can't train an AI on this source code" but "you can't use this source code to integrate with GenAI without purchasing a separate license from the copyright holder"
0
0
0
@soatok You should have a look at https://github.com/ErikMcClure/bad-licenses unironically.
The tldr is, even with such a license, there is no way to enforce such a restriction properly through copyright, morality sadly doesn't translate well.
Like what is "GenAI", what should apply. Is google creating "assosiated keywords" to your website Generative? Quickly you realize you want "bad" and "good", hence morals, and therefore practially impossible to action against with a copyright rule.
2
0
0
Soatok Dreamseeker
soatok@furry.engineer@soupglasses Uh, no.
A public license is just that: a license granted to the public, for free. You can tack whatever dumb restrictions you want on it.
Anyone who doesn't adhere to your dumb restrictions risks violating copyright law, unless they can argue fair use in court. Or they can request a non-public (a.k.a. commercial) license.
It will come down to who has the time and money to win in court in the end.
0
0
0
@soatok Basically, you cannot open source morality, since the law cannot action on ones morality of "good" and "bad", as much as ones anger and frustration might want to.
This is a good article, and basically says to focus the anger instead into politics, and getitng better enforcement legally against for example GenAI instead here. As your software license is not where to go put this energy into.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/you-cant-open-source-license-morality/
1
0
0
Soatok Dreamseeker
soatok@furry.engineer@soupglasses I'm not suggesting anything about morality!
FFS read what I wrote. I specifically said generative AI is excluded from the public license scope. There's no moral judgment here.
1
0
0
Soatok Dreamseeker
soatok@furry.engineer@soupglasses Like, take a step back and reread it extremely literally.
Don't extrapolate.
Don't assume.
Don't infer.
Don't try to read between the lines.
I asked if anyone has done this. I'm curious, not looking for direction.
1
0
0
@soatok Yeah. I am just extremely tired of watching people take this idea of removing the ideals of open source to play "good person bad person" all whack a mole.
For the AGPL case, wouldn't its inclusion require the AI model to also be AGPL'd for its users, if published as a service on a platform like chatgpt.com? If its not, then no copyright license can really stop GenAI.
1
0
0
Soatok Dreamseeker
soatok@furry.engineer@soupglasses I dunno.
What I do know is that not adhering to the terms of a public license has the simple consequence of being treated as if it were a proprietary, copyrighted work.
So if you had a copyleft license that was only a public license if it's not being used with Generative AI, it would put the onus on the AI developers to prove fair use. Which might make their lawyers cranky, at least.
1
0
0
Soatok Dreamseeker
soatok@furry.engineer@soupglasses And, as I said to another person:
This isn't "use GPL to stop GPT from reading my code"
This is "use GPL to stop developers from integrating my code with GPT"
Very, very different
0
0
0