49
Is time for GPL v 4.0? (discuss.tchncs.de)

Now we are facing an unprecedented growth of AI as a whole. Do you think is time for FSF elaborate a new version of GPL to incorporate the new challenges of AI in software development to keep protecting users freedom?

top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] jcolag@lemmy.sdf.org 33 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I keep saying "no" to this sort of thing, for a variety of reasons.

  1. "You can use this code for anything you want as long as you don't work in a field that I don't like" is pretty much the opposite of the spirit of the GPL.
  2. The enormous companies slurping up all content available on the Internet do not care about copyright. The GPL already forbids adapting and redistributing code without licensing under the GPL, and they're not doing that. So another clause that says "hey, if you're training an AI, leave me out" is wasted text that nobody is going to read.
  3. Making "AI" an issue instead of "big corporate abuse" means that academics and hobbyists can't legally train a language model on your code, even if they would otherwise comply with the license.
  4. The FSF has never cared about anything unless Stallman personally cared about it on his personal computer, and they've recently proven that he matters to them more than the community, so we probably shouldn't ever expect a new GPL.
  5. The GPL has so many problems (because it's been based on one person's personal focuses) that they don't care about or isolate in random silos (like the AGPL, as if the web is still a fringe thing) that AI barely seems relevant.

I mean, I get it. The language-model people are exhausting, and their disinterest in copyright law is unpleasant. But asking an organization that doesn't care to add restrictions to a license that the companies don't read isn't going to solve the problem.

[-] wave_walnut@kbin.social 18 points 9 months ago

The problem of recent AI is about fair use of data, not about copyright. To solve the AI problem, we need laws to stop abuse of data rather than to stop copying of code.

[-] BarryZuckerkorn@beehaw.org 6 points 9 months ago

Some portion of the "data" fed into these models is copyrighted, though. Github's copilot is trained on code. Does it violate the GPL to train an AI model on all GPL source code published out there?

[-] jarfil@beehaw.org 12 points 9 months ago

Too soon. The GPL is a license aligning prevalent copyright laws to some ideological goals. There are no prevalent copyright laws regarding AI yet, so there is nothing to base a copyright license on.

First step: introduce AI into copyright law (and pray The Mouse doesn't introduce it first).

[-] ashley@lemmy.ca 8 points 9 months ago

It might be time to start thinking about it, however it will depend on the consensus among the legal system on weather you need to provide attribution through AI.

[-] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 3 points 9 months ago

There is already consensus, it just hasn't been concluded explicitly yet.

There is no "AI" and there's no "learning", so there's no new unbeaten path in law. like some would make you believe. LLMs are data processing software that take input data and output other data. In order to use the input data you have to conform to its licensing, and you can't hide behind arguments like "I don't know what the software is doing with the data" or "I can't identify the input data in the output data anymore".

LLM companies will eventually be found guilty of copyright infringement and they'll settle and start observing licensing terms like everybody else. There are plenty of media companies with lots of money with a vested interest in copyright.

[-] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

That's not how copyrights work. They only care about copying or replicating that data. The hint is in the name

[-] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Copyright is not just about copying the data. It's a name that stuck but it's more accurately to call it "author rights". The law awards the rights holder extensive rights, including deciding how the data is used.

And (as an aside) permission by omission doesn't work as an excuse either, if the right to use the data in some way hasn't been explicitly granted it most likely doesn't apply.

[-] db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 9 months ago

No that's not what copyrights are. The idea that they're "author rights" has no basis in law

[-] lemmyvore@feddit.nl 2 points 9 months ago

Why insist to argue this point when a simple visit to Wikipedia will show I'm right?

[-] madkarlsson@beehaw.org 1 points 9 months ago

You are mistaken and don't seen to fullt grasp what copyright is.

A copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive right to copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work, usually for a limited time.[1][2][3][4][5] The creative work may be in a literary, artistic, educational, or musical form.

Notice what is states besides copying? First paragraph on wikipedia, come on.

[-] madkarlsson@beehaw.org 1 points 9 months ago

You are mistaken and don't seen to fullt grasp what copyright is.

A copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive right to copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work, usually for a limited time.[1][2][3][4][5] The creative work may be in a literary, artistic, educational, or musical form.

[-] Lionir@beehaw.org 4 points 9 months ago

I think if we want a GPLv4, it should not be made by the FSF.

[-] alfonsojon@beehaw.org 6 points 9 months ago

Why is that, out of curiosity?

[-] Lionir@beehaw.org 3 points 9 months ago

The FSF is a non-working organization which refuses to let go of its horrible founder. I hoped it would move on, it didn't and refused to despite massive amounts of community backlash. I no longer believe they should have any role in representing the Free Software movement.

[-] chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 9 months ago

I really like Stallman, the man that made me think about the importance of free software. In my opinion he is essential for free software movement even with some "controversial" ideas. I like the way he defends his ideas, is something rare nowadays.

[-] Lionir@beehaw.org 4 points 9 months ago

I mean, I think his ideas on free software are good generally but his behaviour and opinions on other topics are pretty fucking terrible. I don't understand why people want to defend that part. The FSF can function without him and defend the ideas of Free Software.

[-] jarfil@beehaw.org 1 points 9 months ago

I don't want to defend all of his ideas, but I do want to point out that he's most definitely neurodivergent, while having been used as a tackle target on several fronts by the same people claiming to defend people like him.

If you take a look at those "opinions" from a purely abstract and "internal musings" point of view, you realize that his main fault has been musing aloud while staying in the spotlight and repeating a PR stunt routine taken from an age when Bill Cosby was seen as a family role model.

[-] chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 9 months ago

Indeed, his ideas are often very controversial, he is a old man with old habits and I think he has some deficiency in the way he communicates with people that are contrary to his ideas and this fact makes everything even worse. I don't know what will be with FSF after him for good and bad.

[-] Lionir@beehaw.org 2 points 9 months ago

Some of his ideas are very harmful and he is an abuser. I don't know what to tell you.

[-] chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

But ironically they are the "owner" of the license, anyone can't modify it

[-] jarfil@beehaw.org 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

The GPL is a license made by the FSF, not sure who else could make a new version other than them. Other entities make their own licenses, which might or not be compatible with the GPL.

[-] Lionir@beehaw.org 4 points 9 months ago

Anyone can make a license and make it compatible with the GPL but yes, I forgot that the FSF doesn't allow modifications of the GPL which is pretty fucking weird thinking more about it.

[-] jarfil@beehaw.org 2 points 9 months ago

It makes sense, because it makes "GPL" act as a trademark and a guarantee that the license is what it's supposed to be. And they get that without even paying for a trademark registration, which also makes it a brilliant abuse of copyright law (which, arguably, is what the whole license is about in the first place).

[-] heartlessevil@lemmy.one 3 points 9 months ago

As in to keep it from being used to train AI? I think GPL and especially AGPL already cover that, but nobody cares and FSF can't afford to litigate it.

[-] smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 9 months ago

Richard Stallman talked about this topic there: https://framatube.org/w/1DbsMfwygx7rTjdBR4DPXp

Can't find timestamp tho.

GPLv3 already takes all of that. Programs that train AI have normal licencing applied. Programs that was modified by AI must be under GPL too. The neural network itself if not a program, it's a format and is always modifiable anyway as there is no source code. You can take any neural network and train it futher without data it was trained on before.

[-] bedrooms@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

To license what? Code or text? I don't think either would have enough impact nor adoption.

[-] bedrooms@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago

To license what? Code or text? I don't think both aren't going to have enough impact and adoption.

this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
49 points (100.0% liked)

Free and Open Source Software

9 readers
3 users here now

If it's free and open source and it's also software, it can be discussed here. Subcommunity of Technology.


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS