3 ms·

I guess? But that wasn't about the legality of "AI", or of training such against others copyrighted works, but merely the boring/old issue of establishing the c

by saurik 4y ago

I guess? But that wasn't about the legality of "AI", or of training such against others copyrighted works, but merely the boring/old issue of establishing the copyright pedigree and usage rights of what is presumably (I haven't looked at it: I am just reading the comment <- edit: I have now checked, and while some third-party licenses are included in html/licenses.html, there in fact is no license on the code) a repository of code being maintained by people who are haphazardly pulling from random sources, accepting patches from random people, and who haven't even done the bare minimum of putting a license on their own code in the first place (making it, by default, unable to be used for almost any purpose). It frankly just seems like you are knee-jerking a response to something you have a pet peeve about even when it isn't there :(.

forgotpwd16 4y ago
It was meant as a joke based on the "tangled web of legal nightmares" part and the often written questions/inquiries about the legality of AI generated content. That said, not sure what your point is. It's pretty straightforward from GP that the issue mentioned is about the code licensing rather the content.