7 ms·

No need to hate on you for a valid response. I think we're in a new enough situation that we can look beyond what's legal in a license. When many of us started

by japhyr 4y ago

No need to hate on you for a valid response. I think we're in a new enough situation that we can look beyond what's legal in a license. When many of us started working on open source projects, AI was a far-off concept. Speaking for myself, I thought we'd see steady improvement in code-completion tools, but I didn't think I'd see anything like GPT-4 in my lifetime. Licenses were written for humans working with code. We can talk about corporations as well, but when I've thought about corporations in the past, I thought about people working on code at corporations. The idea of an AI using my open source project to generate working code for someone or some corporation feels...different. Yes, I'm talking explicitly about feelings. I know my feelings don't impact the legalities of a license. But feelings are worth talking about, especially as we're all finding the boundaries of new tools and new ways of working. I don't agree with everything in the post, but I think this is a great conversation to be having.

bruce511 4y ago
I agree that AI usage of code is somewhat murky with current licenses,which obviously don't mention it either way. Free software has a principle of "freedom to run, to do whatever you wish" (freedom 0), so arguably has said that training AI is OK. (We could quibble over the word Run, but the Gnu.org,and RMS clearly say "freedom 0 does not restrict how you use it." GPL code can be used by the military to develop nuclear weapons. Given that the is a guiding principle of the FSF its hard to argue that the current usage is not OK.
- eulenteufel 4y ago
  I have no problem with Copilot being trained on AGPL code and the getting released with a AGPL compatible license. Free to do whatever they want with it. The problem is Copilot training on source code and then discarding any restrictions of the licenses. Maybe it is legal right now but I'm sure this case will find it's way into open source licenses pretty soon.
  - hikawaii 4y ago
    Do we know if CoPilot X was trained on AGPL, not just GPL? Additionally I'm not sure if AGPL does anything. I suspect the ethics and such of licensing when large fractions of work are training AI and using AI need to be worked out rather than getting mad at any individual. What does copy left look like for AI?
    - zelphirkalt 4y ago
      There is indeed a problem of transparency right now. Companies afaik did not release the complete training data set. Might even be intentionally, because they do not want to risk, that they trained it on stuff they should not have had, without building in license and attribution into the output of their models. Or it might be, that they know that to be a fact. I can only hope, that lawmakers hurry to catch up with reality and impose transparency obligations for AI models.
  - zelphirkalt 4y ago
    Even if usage is legal right now, the other obligations of the license need to be adhered to as well. Can't just pick or choose one tiny aspect of FSF philosophy and run with that. AGPL is clearly about sharing and spreading free/libre software as well.
- uuuguaii 4y ago
  The problems are attribution and licensing. Not use.
- fauigerzigerk 4y ago
  I largely agree with you, but I think there is one question that hasn't been addressed yet: Are the weights learned by an LLM a derivative work? When a person learns from GPL code this question doesn't arise. The state of a person's brain is outside of copyright. But is the state of an LLM also outside of copyright or outside of the terms covered by the GPL? I'm not sure. An LLM can not only emit source code derived from code published under the GPL, it can also potentially execute a program and could therefore be considered object code. This isn't necessarily a problem as long as the model isn't distributed and does not include any AGPL code.
  - kuschku 4y ago
    > the state of a person's brain is outside of copyright It clearly isn’t. Which is why clean-room reverse engineering always requires at least two people. Or why a musician that accidentally recreates a chord progression they heard years ago but don't remember the source might still get sued.
    - fauigerzigerk 4y ago
      No, you're missing the very distinction I'm trying to highlight. When I read and remember some text, possibly also learning from it, I'm not making a copy and I'm not creating a derivative work. The state of my brain is outside of copyright. Only at the point where I create a new representation based on what I have read I may be violating someone's copyrights. But is it the same for an AI? Is the act of reading, remembering and learning (i.e. adjusting model weights) not in itself tantamount to creating a derivative work?
      - 261582335426158 4y ago
        The state of your brain is moot wrt copyright as you cannot distribute your brain. Copyright is to the exclusive right to make copies, it is the exclusive right of distributing them. As a simple example reading a book aloud in your home or singing in the shower is not copyright infringement; not even if you record it. If you sell tickets to these performances or stream them on twitch it becomes copyright infringing. Similarly it cannot be in violation of copyright for GitHub to train copilot on any random code they can legally access. It can be in violation to sell access to the model trained in this way.
happymellon 4y ago
> Yes, I'm talking explicitly about feelings. I know my feelings don't impact the legalities of a license. They don't impact the current legality of a licence, but it will affect future ones. GPL/BSD/Apache/proprietary, they are all picked for ideological concerns which all stem from feelings. It is good to discuss these things, and it is good to recognise that these are emotionally driven.
- Sander_Marechal 4y ago
  > They don't impact the current legality of a license, but it will affect future ones. Don't they? Even the most liberal licenses require that you at least keep the license and attributions. Which are exactly the parts that AI systems remove. I would have no problem with an AI system trained on GPL code if the output was still covered by the GPL.
  - tlocke 4y ago
    The MIT No Attribution licence https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit-0/ https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit-0/ doesn't require an attribution. It's the licence I choose for new projects.
    - uuuguaii 4y ago
      That's very generous of you. Don't get angry though if I go ahead and re-publish all your code with your name replaced by mine. That's exactly what you are allowing me to do with such a license.
      - mech422 4y ago
        That would be a copyright violation, not a licensing issue. GP is giving you a _license_ to use his code without having to say "GP wrote this", he is NOT giving up his rights to the code.. edit: to clarify, he's allowing you to _use_ it however you like, including making a derivative work, including it wholesale, etc. However, claiming authorship of the original code would still run afoul of the original copyright. edit2: oh - if you mean relicensing the code - that is allowed.
Lutger 4y ago
Fully agree. This may seem a bit nitpicky and philosophical, but anyway: these feelings you mention are about things, and these things the feelings come from are what is most important. Feelings are never standalone, if they are they are just moods which are so personal its hard to have a conversation over. Let's call 'the things' values. I'd say feelings are perceptions of values, and as such they invariably have a conceptual element to them. And exactly that conceptual aspect makes them suitable for conversation and sometimes even debate, insofar as they can be incorrect. We can acknowledge the subjective, emotive aspect of feelings as highly and inalienably personal, respect the individual opinion behind them and contest the implicit truth-claims all at the same time.
FrustratedMonky 4y ago
Yes. People here seem to be forgetting that Open Source was a community driven ideal first. The License came later as "protection". Corporations were stealing code and there was no recourse. The variety of open source licenses were created to provide a framework for the community, to fight off stealing, to keep it open. So GPT is very much 'laundering' the code just like criminals 'launder' money.

by japhyr 4y ago

bruce511 4y ago

I agree that AI usage of code is somewhat murky with current licenses,which obviously don't mention it either way. Free software has a principle of "freedom to run, to do whatever you wish" (freedom 0), so arguably has said that training AI is OK. (We could quibble over the word Run, but the Gnu.org,and RMS clearly say "freedom 0 does not restrict how you use it." GPL code can be used by the military to develop nuclear weapons. Given that the is a guiding principle of the FSF its hard to argue that the current usage is not OK.

eulenteufel 4y ago
I have no problem with Copilot being trained on AGPL code and the getting released with a AGPL compatible license. Free to do whatever they want with it. The problem is Copilot training on source code and then discarding any restrictions of the licenses. Maybe it is legal right now but I'm sure this case will find it's way into open source licenses pretty soon.
- hikawaii 4y ago
  Do we know if CoPilot X was trained on AGPL, not just GPL? Additionally I'm not sure if AGPL does anything. I suspect the ethics and such of licensing when large fractions of work are training AI and using AI need to be worked out rather than getting mad at any individual. What does copy left look like for AI?
  - zelphirkalt 4y ago
    There is indeed a problem of transparency right now. Companies afaik did not release the complete training data set. Might even be intentionally, because they do not want to risk, that they trained it on stuff they should not have had, without building in license and attribution into the output of their models. Or it might be, that they know that to be a fact. I can only hope, that lawmakers hurry to catch up with reality and impose transparency obligations for AI models.
- zelphirkalt 4y ago
  Even if usage is legal right now, the other obligations of the license need to be adhered to as well. Can't just pick or choose one tiny aspect of FSF philosophy and run with that. AGPL is clearly about sharing and spreading free/libre software as well.
uuuguaii 4y ago
The problems are attribution and licensing. Not use.
fauigerzigerk 4y ago
I largely agree with you, but I think there is one question that hasn't been addressed yet: Are the weights learned by an LLM a derivative work? When a person learns from GPL code this question doesn't arise. The state of a person's brain is outside of copyright. But is the state of an LLM also outside of copyright or outside of the terms covered by the GPL? I'm not sure. An LLM can not only emit source code derived from code published under the GPL, it can also potentially execute a program and could therefore be considered object code. This isn't necessarily a problem as long as the model isn't distributed and does not include any AGPL code.
- kuschku 4y ago
  > the state of a person's brain is outside of copyright It clearly isn’t. Which is why clean-room reverse engineering always requires at least two people. Or why a musician that accidentally recreates a chord progression they heard years ago but don't remember the source might still get sued.
  - fauigerzigerk 4y ago
    No, you're missing the very distinction I'm trying to highlight. When I read and remember some text, possibly also learning from it, I'm not making a copy and I'm not creating a derivative work. The state of my brain is outside of copyright. Only at the point where I create a new representation based on what I have read I may be violating someone's copyrights. But is it the same for an AI? Is the act of reading, remembering and learning (i.e. adjusting model weights) not in itself tantamount to creating a derivative work?
    - 261582335426158 4y ago
      The state of your brain is moot wrt copyright as you cannot distribute your brain. Copyright is to the exclusive right to make copies, it is the exclusive right of distributing them. As a simple example reading a book aloud in your home or singing in the shower is not copyright infringement; not even if you record it. If you sell tickets to these performances or stream them on twitch it becomes copyright infringing. Similarly it cannot be in violation of copyright for GitHub to train copilot on any random code they can legally access. It can be in violation to sell access to the model trained in this way.

happymellon 4y ago

> Yes, I'm talking explicitly about feelings. I know my feelings don't impact the legalities of a license. They don't impact the current legality of a licence, but it will affect future ones. GPL/BSD/Apache/proprietary, they are all picked for ideological concerns which all stem from feelings. It is good to discuss these things, and it is good to recognise that these are emotionally driven.

Sander_Marechal 4y ago
> They don't impact the current legality of a license, but it will affect future ones. Don't they? Even the most liberal licenses require that you at least keep the license and attributions. Which are exactly the parts that AI systems remove. I would have no problem with an AI system trained on GPL code if the output was still covered by the GPL.
- tlocke 4y ago
  The MIT No Attribution licence https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit-0/ https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit-0/ doesn't require an attribution. It's the licence I choose for new projects.
  - uuuguaii 4y ago
    That's very generous of you. Don't get angry though if I go ahead and re-publish all your code with your name replaced by mine. That's exactly what you are allowing me to do with such a license.
    - mech422 4y ago
      That would be a copyright violation, not a licensing issue. GP is giving you a _license_ to use his code without having to say "GP wrote this", he is NOT giving up his rights to the code.. edit: to clarify, he's allowing you to _use_ it however you like, including making a derivative work, including it wholesale, etc. However, claiming authorship of the original code would still run afoul of the original copyright. edit2: oh - if you mean relicensing the code - that is allowed.

Lutger 4y ago

Fully agree. This may seem a bit nitpicky and philosophical, but anyway: these feelings you mention are about things, and these things the feelings come from are what is most important. Feelings are never standalone, if they are they are just moods which are so personal its hard to have a conversation over. Let's call 'the things' values. I'd say feelings are perceptions of values, and as such they invariably have a conceptual element to them. And exactly that conceptual aspect makes them suitable for conversation and sometimes even debate, insofar as they can be incorrect. We can acknowledge the subjective, emotive aspect of feelings as highly and inalienably personal, respect the individual opinion behind them and contest the implicit truth-claims all at the same time.

FrustratedMonky 4y ago

Yes. People here seem to be forgetting that Open Source was a community driven ideal first. The License came later as "protection". Corporations were stealing code and there was no recourse. The variety of open source licenses were created to provide a framework for the community, to fight off stealing, to keep it open. So GPT is very much 'laundering' the code just like criminals 'launder' money.