11 ms·

Wrong. What do you think the 'P' in GPL stands for? Regardless: 1) You don't need a license to look at things. Copyrights reserve very specific rights: Repro

Wrong. What do you think the 'P' in GPL stands for? Regardless: 1) You don't need a license to look at things. Copyrights reserve very specific rights: Reproduction, creating derivative works, distribution (limited to first sale), performance, display, and in some cases, transmission 2) And data can't be copyrighted. US IP law is based on a clause in the US Constitution, and is fundamentally bounded in reach.

drran 5y ago
Wrong. What do you think the 'L' in GPL stands for? GPL code ≠ public data
- murgindrag 5y ago
  If you have a legal argument, please make it. If you're going to make random, incorrect, unsubstantiated statements, this might not be the best forum for it. I'm not going to engage in a flame war here. I clearly laid out references to relevant parts of the law: (1) What a license is and is not needed for under US copyright law (2) purpose of the GPL, and (3) distinction between copyright and data rights. If you have any sort of citation for this nonsense, please post it. Otherwise, I'm checking out here.
  - drran 5y ago
    A computer program cannot look at things in the same sense as a human can. Moreover, a computer program is not a "public", because, for example, your smartphone is not considered as a guest at a show. When you say that a computer program "looks" at my data, because my code is for public, it means that the owner of the computer program use my code to make derivative work without obeying of my license, which is explicitly forbidden by copyright law. For example, you cannot pretend that your smartphone is just looking at a copyrighted film in a cinema. Nobody will ever bother to ask your smartphone, what it's doing. Stop pretending that your smartphone can "look at data".
odditylynx 5y ago
> 1) You don't need a license to look at things. While correct, using protected works in an AI model requires some form of reproduction. In Canada, even the loading of information into RAM is considered a reproduction (although such reproductions may be excluded from infringement under s. 30.71 of the Copyright Act, RSC 1985, c C-42). > 2) And data can't be copyrighted. True, but data is often an abstraction of other expressions that are protected by copyright. Additionally, compilations of data and database structures attract different protections in various jurisdictions. E.g. sui generis database rights in the EU.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Asmod4n 5y ago
In Germany fair use doesn’t exist, you can get sued for copying a headline and data is copyrightable.

drran 5y ago

Wrong. What do you think the 'L' in GPL stands for? GPL code ≠ public data

murgindrag 5y ago
If you have a legal argument, please make it. If you're going to make random, incorrect, unsubstantiated statements, this might not be the best forum for it. I'm not going to engage in a flame war here. I clearly laid out references to relevant parts of the law: (1) What a license is and is not needed for under US copyright law (2) purpose of the GPL, and (3) distinction between copyright and data rights. If you have any sort of citation for this nonsense, please post it. Otherwise, I'm checking out here.
- drran 5y ago
  A computer program cannot look at things in the same sense as a human can. Moreover, a computer program is not a "public", because, for example, your smartphone is not considered as a guest at a show. When you say that a computer program "looks" at my data, because my code is for public, it means that the owner of the computer program use my code to make derivative work without obeying of my license, which is explicitly forbidden by copyright law. For example, you cannot pretend that your smartphone is just looking at a copyrighted film in a cinema. Nobody will ever bother to ask your smartphone, what it's doing. Stop pretending that your smartphone can "look at data".

odditylynx 5y ago

> 1) You don't need a license to look at things. While correct, using protected works in an AI model requires some form of reproduction. In Canada, even the loading of information into RAM is considered a reproduction (although such reproductions may be excluded from infringement under s. 30.71 of the Copyright Act, RSC 1985, c C-42). > 2) And data can't be copyrighted. True, but data is often an abstraction of other expressions that are protected by copyright. Additionally, compilations of data and database structures attract different protections in various jurisdictions. E.g. sui generis database rights in the EU.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Asmod4n 5y ago

In Germany fair use doesn’t exist, you can get sued for copying a headline and data is copyrightable.