13 ms·

Why hasn't someone just changed the GPL license already: "If you train an AI on this code, you must release the source code and generated neural net of that AI

Why hasn't someone just changed the GPL license already: "If you train an AI on this code, you must release the source code and generated neural net of that AI as open source" or something to that effect. It won't stop it, but it will slow it down, and it seems like the right T&Cs to put on training against GPL code because it gives an advantage to open source AIs, however minor.

jacquesm 4y ago
They are really not going to care about what you put into your license file, they are just going to claim that the use of GitHub binds you to their terms of service and that this supersedes your own license. Good luck fighting that.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  ToS doesn't supercede copyright though, does it? The real rub will be the first court precedent on whether GPTs infringe on source data IP. Could see it going either way: fundamentally transformative or not.
  - ratherbefuddled 4y ago
    > ToS doesn't supercede copyright though, does it? But in what way does reading a copyrighted work and then producing a mass of numbers as a result infringe copyright?
    - feanaro 4y ago
      The copyright infringement comes about later, when that mass of numbers is used to produce a topically related work. The same rules apply for humans -- see the concept of "clean room implementation".
      - ratherbefuddled 4y ago
        It really doesn't. Prose isn't source code. Learning something, then later writing something else isn't copying.
        ethbr0 4y ago
        My limited understanding of case law is that transformative use is still judged very human-centricly. E.g. the courts take a dim view of any attempt to create a machine (in the abstract sense) that takes in copywritten works and churns out similar-but-uncopywritten works
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    It shouldn't but good luck fighting the 500 Lbs gorilla on its home turf. Most people will avoid the fight, even if they are in the right.
    - arcanemachiner 4y ago
      This is why I only put code on GitHub if I want it to be seen by everyone (including Big Data).
    - techdragon 4y ago
      The ToS is necessary for GitHub to provide their services, the wording is pretty carefully constructed so that GitHub are safe to change their service and develop new things. Loosely speaking "by uploading code you grant GitHub permission to blah blah with that code" I'm not sure how well it will go down in court fighting this... since we agreed to it. But the more interesting question will be is the result a complete "you loose" and GitHub walks away, or if they are forced to take actions in order to defend the copyright of users producing content... a "Code Id" type system that warns you if the code your uploading is too similar to someone else's in order to allow you to use the fun new AI tools to make code and pay GitHub, but also simultaneously defend users legal intellectual property rights.
      - saurik 4y ago
        I just want to make sure you appreciate that if you really believe this argument then GitHub can only be used by the people who actually directly own the copyright on projects; and if you, for example, want to clone and edit my software (the vast majority of which I explicitly never uploaded to GitHub) then you wouldn't be allowed to (which doesn't seem like either the intention or the way it is commonly used)... and like, it would essentially be impossible to use GitHub to work on an open source project that has some long storied history with many hundreds of contributors without going back and getting all of them to agree.
        jacquesm 4y ago
        Ah yes, good point: plenty of the people that fork projects do not actually have the copyright to that code to begin with, they just use github while they themselves are in compliance with the license, that definitely does not give GitHub rights that they would have otherwise to negotiate with the original copyright holders. 'Open source' does not equate 'public domain' and GitHub effectively seems to try to make that claim.
  - alpaca128 4y ago
    > ToS doesn't supercede copyright though, does it? It does unless you can afford to sue Microsoft.
  - pcthrowaway 4y ago
    You agree to Microsoft's ToS before you can put any code on Github, regardless of the license. You can't opt-out of those terms, regardless of your license, just as you can't opt out of Facebooks terms which give them the right to use your content for their business or marketing purposes, even if the various chain posts that have spread there might claim otherwise.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      This is true, but a ToS should not be able to override an important law such as copyright, which provides you with several inalienable rights that you can only contract out of with your explicit consent. Doubly so if the ToS are changed after you post your code there without your explicit approval. I could put text in the ToS of my website that you owe me your firstborn, but that wouldn't make it legal or enforceable.
    - saurik 4y ago
      The vast majority of the code I've written that is on GitHub isn't on GitHub because I would ever have stooped to putting it there, but because it is open source under a license that lets other people redistribute and edit the code (most often GPL or AGPL; maybe some older code under BSD) and they have chosen to use GitHub (which makes me sad, but as far as I'd have been concerned is totally within their rights). Are you claiming that people should not be allowed to clone other peoples' open source projects and put copies up on GitHub?
      - pcthrowaway 4y ago
        Well upthread the discussion changed to using a non-open license that prevents people from training AI on it. If you released software under such a license, someone re-uploading to Github would probably be violating their terms or yours. Regardless, Microsoft would probably remove the repo if you contacted them to let them know you're the copyright holder, and the software license is incompatible with their terms. It remains to be seen if they have a way to then clean their training data of the influence. It would be the same situation if someone uploaded any other proprietary code.
- xigoi 4y ago
  > This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content. It also does not grant GitHub the right to otherwise distribute or use Your Content outside of our provision of the Service, except that as part of the right to archive Your Content, GitHub may permit our partners to store and archive Your Content in public repositories in connection with the GitHub Arctic Code Vault and GitHub Archive Program.
Aaron2222 4y ago
Aren't they claiming that it's fair use? IANAL, but wouldn't that make the licence irrelevant if training AI/ML models was found to be fair use? And if not, it's a licence violation anyway?
- HWR_14 4y ago
  Yes, if it's fair use than the license is irrelevant (at least in the US).
- aetherspawn 4y ago
  IANAL either, but the license still applies to the end-user (the person who trained the AI) so it would seem like it would add at least 1 non-trivial license violation for that user? Edit: I googled "fair use copyright US" and have now decided that US copyright law is stupid.
  - EMIRELADERO 4y ago
    > Edit: I googled "fair use copyright US" and have now decided that US copyright law is stupid. Don't be like that. Fair use is what allowed VCRs to continue existing, what allows Google Images and Books to exist, what allows the development of emulators... I could go on.
    - UberFly 4y ago
      "I googled "fair use copyright US" and have now decided that US copyright law is stupid" How long exactly did you study the issue? It is very complex.
  - popinman322 4y ago
    > I googled "fair use copyright US" and have now decided that US copyright law is stupid. Fair use helps artists, journalists, and (indirectly) the general public. It prevents censorship of critical or opposing views, among a lot of other uses that are beneficial to society (see sibling comment). US copyright law is backwards in a lot of ways but this isn't one of them.
Dalewyn 4y ago
Implying the "AI" community respects intellectual property rights.
- gat1 4y ago
  Also implying software companies do respect open source licenses
  - xdennis 4y ago
    I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. Many companies ignore open source licenses because and it's difficult to prove they aren't following them.
euroderf 4y ago
When GH devised Copilot, they could have (internally, at GH) decided to make a two-tier model, one tier trained only on unrestrictive licenses, the other bringing in more-restrictively license code too. And then offer them to the GH-using public as two different functionalities. An intelligently differentiated product line for intelligent people. But: NOOOO. In order to close off this possibility, which would restrict Copilot revenue, they instead would roll out a single undifferentiated product and with lots of "gee whiz!" and associated hooplah, and be sure to offer it for free for a while to suck everyone in and head off criticism.
avodonosov 4y ago
"And the code generated by the model also falls under GPL"
theonlybutlet 4y ago
By the same logic. If I read your code and learnt something from it. Do I need to open source all my thoughts?

jacquesm 4y ago

They are really not going to care about what you put into your license file, they are just going to claim that the use of GitHub binds you to their terms of service and that this supersedes your own license. Good luck fighting that.

ethbr0 4y ago
ToS doesn't supercede copyright though, does it? The real rub will be the first court precedent on whether GPTs infringe on source data IP. Could see it going either way: fundamentally transformative or not.
- ratherbefuddled 4y ago
  > ToS doesn't supercede copyright though, does it? But in what way does reading a copyrighted work and then producing a mass of numbers as a result infringe copyright?
  - feanaro 4y ago
    The copyright infringement comes about later, when that mass of numbers is used to produce a topically related work. The same rules apply for humans -- see the concept of "clean room implementation".
    - ratherbefuddled 4y ago
      It really doesn't. Prose isn't source code. Learning something, then later writing something else isn't copying.
      - ethbr0 4y ago
        My limited understanding of case law is that transformative use is still judged very human-centricly. E.g. the courts take a dim view of any attempt to create a machine (in the abstract sense) that takes in copywritten works and churns out similar-but-uncopywritten works
- jacquesm 4y ago
  It shouldn't but good luck fighting the 500 Lbs gorilla on its home turf. Most people will avoid the fight, even if they are in the right.
  - arcanemachiner 4y ago
    This is why I only put code on GitHub if I want it to be seen by everyone (including Big Data).
  - techdragon 4y ago
    The ToS is necessary for GitHub to provide their services, the wording is pretty carefully constructed so that GitHub are safe to change their service and develop new things. Loosely speaking "by uploading code you grant GitHub permission to blah blah with that code" I'm not sure how well it will go down in court fighting this... since we agreed to it. But the more interesting question will be is the result a complete "you loose" and GitHub walks away, or if they are forced to take actions in order to defend the copyright of users producing content... a "Code Id" type system that warns you if the code your uploading is too similar to someone else's in order to allow you to use the fun new AI tools to make code and pay GitHub, but also simultaneously defend users legal intellectual property rights.
    - saurik 4y ago
      I just want to make sure you appreciate that if you really believe this argument then GitHub can only be used by the people who actually directly own the copyright on projects; and if you, for example, want to clone and edit my software (the vast majority of which I explicitly never uploaded to GitHub) then you wouldn't be allowed to (which doesn't seem like either the intention or the way it is commonly used)... and like, it would essentially be impossible to use GitHub to work on an open source project that has some long storied history with many hundreds of contributors without going back and getting all of them to agree.
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        Ah yes, good point: plenty of the people that fork projects do not actually have the copyright to that code to begin with, they just use github while they themselves are in compliance with the license, that definitely does not give GitHub rights that they would have otherwise to negotiate with the original copyright holders. 'Open source' does not equate 'public domain' and GitHub effectively seems to try to make that claim.
- alpaca128 4y ago
  > ToS doesn't supercede copyright though, does it? It does unless you can afford to sue Microsoft.
- pcthrowaway 4y ago
  You agree to Microsoft's ToS before you can put any code on Github, regardless of the license. You can't opt-out of those terms, regardless of your license, just as you can't opt out of Facebooks terms which give them the right to use your content for their business or marketing purposes, even if the various chain posts that have spread there might claim otherwise.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    This is true, but a ToS should not be able to override an important law such as copyright, which provides you with several inalienable rights that you can only contract out of with your explicit consent. Doubly so if the ToS are changed after you post your code there without your explicit approval. I could put text in the ToS of my website that you owe me your firstborn, but that wouldn't make it legal or enforceable.
  - saurik 4y ago
    The vast majority of the code I've written that is on GitHub isn't on GitHub because I would ever have stooped to putting it there, but because it is open source under a license that lets other people redistribute and edit the code (most often GPL or AGPL; maybe some older code under BSD) and they have chosen to use GitHub (which makes me sad, but as far as I'd have been concerned is totally within their rights). Are you claiming that people should not be allowed to clone other peoples' open source projects and put copies up on GitHub?
    - pcthrowaway 4y ago
      Well upthread the discussion changed to using a non-open license that prevents people from training AI on it. If you released software under such a license, someone re-uploading to Github would probably be violating their terms or yours. Regardless, Microsoft would probably remove the repo if you contacted them to let them know you're the copyright holder, and the software license is incompatible with their terms. It remains to be seen if they have a way to then clean their training data of the influence. It would be the same situation if someone uploaded any other proprietary code.
xigoi 4y ago
> This license does not grant GitHub the right to sell Your Content. It also does not grant GitHub the right to otherwise distribute or use Your Content outside of our provision of the Service, except that as part of the right to archive Your Content, GitHub may permit our partners to store and archive Your Content in public repositories in connection with the GitHub Arctic Code Vault and GitHub Archive Program.

Aaron2222 4y ago

Aren't they claiming that it's fair use? IANAL, but wouldn't that make the licence irrelevant if training AI/ML models was found to be fair use? And if not, it's a licence violation anyway?

HWR_14 4y ago
Yes, if it's fair use than the license is irrelevant (at least in the US).
aetherspawn 4y ago
IANAL either, but the license still applies to the end-user (the person who trained the AI) so it would seem like it would add at least 1 non-trivial license violation for that user? Edit: I googled "fair use copyright US" and have now decided that US copyright law is stupid.
- EMIRELADERO 4y ago
  > Edit: I googled "fair use copyright US" and have now decided that US copyright law is stupid. Don't be like that. Fair use is what allowed VCRs to continue existing, what allows Google Images and Books to exist, what allows the development of emulators... I could go on.
  - UberFly 4y ago
    "I googled "fair use copyright US" and have now decided that US copyright law is stupid" How long exactly did you study the issue? It is very complex.
- popinman322 4y ago
  > I googled "fair use copyright US" and have now decided that US copyright law is stupid. Fair use helps artists, journalists, and (indirectly) the general public. It prevents censorship of critical or opposing views, among a lot of other uses that are beneficial to society (see sibling comment). US copyright law is backwards in a lot of ways but this isn't one of them.

Dalewyn 4y ago

Implying the "AI" community respects intellectual property rights.

gat1 4y ago
Also implying software companies do respect open source licenses
- xdennis 4y ago
  I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. Many companies ignore open source licenses because and it's difficult to prove they aren't following them.

euroderf 4y ago

When GH devised Copilot, they could have (internally, at GH) decided to make a two-tier model, one tier trained only on unrestrictive licenses, the other bringing in more-restrictively license code too. And then offer them to the GH-using public as two different functionalities. An intelligently differentiated product line for intelligent people. But: NOOOO. In order to close off this possibility, which would restrict Copilot revenue, they instead would roll out a single undifferentiated product and with lots of "gee whiz!" and associated hooplah, and be sure to offer it for free for a while to suck everyone in and head off criticism.

avodonosov 4y ago

"And the code generated by the model also falls under GPL"

theonlybutlet 4y ago

By the same logic. If I read your code and learnt something from it. Do I need to open source all my thoughts?