โฒ 2399 โผ ๐ค Interesting (thelemmy.club) submitted 2 months ago by cat_fishing@feddit.online to c/mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world 222 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[โ] merc@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 months ago (1 child) never intended for it to be used as training data. You could have chosen a different license than the GPL. Doesn't the GPL cover shit like this? No. Didn't you read the license you used? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] balsoft@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (2 children) GPL absolutely should cover shit like this. Training an LLM on your code makes it definitionally a derivative work, therefore it must be licensed under GPL too (with limited fair use exceptions which shouldn't apply here). The problem is that the US government is not willing to enforce this at all, because it is owned by the same billionaires as the AI companies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [โ] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Training an LLM on your code makes it definitionally a derivative work If so, then every painter who studied Picasso is making Picasso-derived works. That's not how copyright works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago I don't know what to tell you, legally there's a difference between a person learning something and training an LLM. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 1 point 2 months ago The problem is that the US government is not willing to enforce this at all, because it is owned by the same billionaires as the AI companies. That'd be an uphill battle, even prominent OSS projects would fight against that unfortunately. If the output of an LLM would found to be derivative of the input, that'd cause lots of problems for (e.g.) Linux, they love claude and have been funneling its output into the kernel for a while now, they'd rather not think about the licensing situation there. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] balsoft@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (2 children) GPL absolutely should cover shit like this. Training an LLM on your code makes it definitionally a derivative work, therefore it must be licensed under GPL too (with limited fair use exceptions which shouldn't apply here). The problem is that the US government is not willing to enforce this at all, because it is owned by the same billionaires as the AI companies. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [โ] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Training an LLM on your code makes it definitionally a derivative work If so, then every painter who studied Picasso is making Picasso-derived works. That's not how copyright works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago I don't know what to tell you, legally there's a difference between a person learning something and training an LLM. permalink fedilink source parent [โ] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 1 point 2 months ago The problem is that the US government is not willing to enforce this at all, because it is owned by the same billionaires as the AI companies. That'd be an uphill battle, even prominent OSS projects would fight against that unfortunately. If the output of an LLM would found to be derivative of the input, that'd cause lots of problems for (e.g.) Linux, they love claude and have been funneling its output into the kernel for a while now, they'd rather not think about the licensing situation there. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 months ago (1 child) Training an LLM on your code makes it definitionally a derivative work If so, then every painter who studied Picasso is making Picasso-derived works. That's not how copyright works. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [โ] balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago I don't know what to tell you, legally there's a difference between a person learning something and training an LLM. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] balsoft@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 month ago I don't know what to tell you, legally there's a difference between a person learning something and training an LLM. permalink fedilink source parent
[โ] The_Decryptor@aussie.zone 1 point 2 months ago The problem is that the US government is not willing to enforce this at all, because it is owned by the same billionaires as the AI companies. That'd be an uphill battle, even prominent OSS projects would fight against that unfortunately. If the output of an LLM would found to be derivative of the input, that'd cause lots of problems for (e.g.) Linux, they love claude and have been funneling its output into the kernel for a while now, they'd rather not think about the licensing situation there. permalink fedilink source parent
