3 ms·

The No-AI 3-Clause License: https://bugfix-66.com/7a82559a13b39c7fa404320c14f47ce0c304facc51cdacbba3f99654652bf428 https://bugfix-66.com/7a82559a13b39c7fa40432

The No-AI 3-Clause License: https://bugfix-66.com/7a82559a13b39c7fa404320c14f47ce0c304facc51cdacbba3f99654652bf428 https://bugfix-66.com/7a82559a13b39c7fa404320c14f47ce0c304fa... This is the only license to explicitly disallow language model training and inference using your code. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: ... 3. Use in source or binary form for the construction or operation of predictive software generation systems is prohibited. All other licenses seem to apply only when the code is emitted, and therefore can't really protect you. This attacks the problem at the source. If Microsoft trains Copilot on your code, they are unambiguously violating an explicit condition that controls use. Otherwise, it's just the standard BSD 2-Clause License.

wanderingmind 4y ago
I think its a good start. Not a lawyer, But my guess is the definition around predictibe systems need to be defined by courts. If a system just collects and curates, but then is fully firewalled from the transforming or learning module, is that part of predictive systems? Its a fascinating start and I will be observing its adaption.
fargle 4y ago
unfortunately that's a terrible idea: 1. copyright licenses cannot be imagined to limit what you do with the legal copy of your software. it's not what copyright is or does. 2. it's also no longer an open source license, OSI, DFSG, GPL are all incompatible and would create practical problems for your would be users this is a problem that doesn't need to be solved; your license likely already prohibits this - copying without attribution, re-licensing, or license-washing. what remains is courts fine tuning what is "fair use" snippets or not, and it's not likely to come down as OK to use snippets like the fast sqrt as fair use. same whether it's a human abusing fair use, or a company, or a machine used by either of those. the AI aspect has no legal bearing and changes nothing - it just made the problem practical enough to actually happen. open source people and projects that have had their licenses violated need to sue and defend their existing copyrights.

wanderingmind 4y ago

I think its a good start. Not a lawyer, But my guess is the definition around predictibe systems need to be defined by courts. If a system just collects and curates, but then is fully firewalled from the transforming or learning module, is that part of predictive systems? Its a fascinating start and I will be observing its adaption.

fargle 4y ago

unfortunately that's a terrible idea: 1. copyright licenses cannot be imagined to limit what you do with the legal copy of your software. it's not what copyright is or does. 2. it's also no longer an open source license, OSI, DFSG, GPL are all incompatible and would create practical problems for your would be users this is a problem that doesn't need to be solved; your license likely already prohibits this - copying without attribution, re-licensing, or license-washing. what remains is courts fine tuning what is "fair use" snippets or not, and it's not likely to come down as OK to use snippets like the fast sqrt as fair use. same whether it's a human abusing fair use, or a company, or a machine used by either of those. the AI aspect has no legal bearing and changes nothing - it just made the problem practical enough to actually happen. open source people and projects that have had their licenses violated need to sue and defend their existing copyrights.