4 ms·

Yeah on the one hand, isn't opening your source all about not really minding what happens to it after that? It's intended to be copied and used. On the other ha

Yeah on the one hand, isn't opening your source all about not really minding what happens to it after that? It's intended to be copied and used. On the other hand something about the term "laundering" kind of resonated for me. It's kind of like automated plagiarism where you spread your copying out over millions of people. But plagiarism only has meaning as an offense when the thing being copied isn't intended to be copied. But for copyright purposes is there a difference between copying exactly, and the type of blending a LLM does? I'm too confused. That feeling when you hit on something society has never thought about before.

lionkor 4y ago
no, open source isn't about practically giving up your rights, its about restricting use of your code and software in exactly such a way that it gives every user as much freedom as possible.
zelphirkalt 4y ago
If we go by how many people explain open source, you would be right, but if we go by how people who actually know what their licenses are supposed to do explain open source, then no. You give a license for a specific reason. One might be to allow others to copy, but there is usually a condition, and that is to leave the license information intact. If we go further towards free/libre software licenses like GPL or AGPL, then we have more conditions to it. For example that, if you distribute software using that code, you need to distribute the source of your software as well (a bit imprecise). If you want to get a better picture of the situation, read up on the licenses and what they do, specifically the term "copyleft".
- robertlagrant 4y ago
  That's why OSS is not about the contents of more restrictive licences (as you say, copyleft is a good example), but about the broadest definition that applies to all of them. More specialised sub-types can have more conditions, but then we should speak about those sub-types directly. I make this point because it causes confusion. Saying "my OSS project is being run by others for money and I get none of it" is confusing, as it uses the supertype. Using the subtype is clearer, and even self-explanatory: "my project I licenced so others can make money from it while giving me none is being run by others to make money from it and I get none". That may be a bad situation, but at least the reasons are now clear.
layer8 4y ago
This actually has been thought about before, in the context of remixes, collages, etc. The essential question is how much of the originality of the original work(s) constitutes the originality of the new/derived work. If it is little enough, then it’s okay. The issue with AI models is that they have no way of assessing originality and tracking the transfer of originality.
uuuguaii 4y ago
> Yeah on the one hand, isn't opening your source all about not really minding what happens to it after that? No! That's a gross misrepresentation of what open sourcing is. It's the offer of a deal. You publish the source code and in return for looking at it and using it for sth, I have obligations. Like attribution and licensing requirements regarding derived works.
AmericanChopper 4y ago
The term is being used here to imply that the generated code is somehow bypassing the licensing requirements, which isn’t necessarily true, and certainly isn’t a substantiated claim. You can read licensed code, learn from it, and then write your own code derived from that learning, without having committed a copyright violation. You can also read licensed code, directly copy paste it into your codebase, and still not have committed a copyright violation, as long as you did so in a way that constituted fair use (which copy-pasting snippets certainly would). There’s no copyright issue here at all, and rationally speaking there aren’t any legitimate misuse of open source concerns either. If these people were honest they’d just admit to feeling threatened by AI, but nobody would care about that, so they just try to manufacture some fake moral panic.

lionkor 4y ago

no, open source isn't about practically giving up your rights, its about restricting use of your code and software in exactly such a way that it gives every user as much freedom as possible.

zelphirkalt 4y ago

If we go by how many people explain open source, you would be right, but if we go by how people who actually know what their licenses are supposed to do explain open source, then no. You give a license for a specific reason. One might be to allow others to copy, but there is usually a condition, and that is to leave the license information intact. If we go further towards free/libre software licenses like GPL or AGPL, then we have more conditions to it. For example that, if you distribute software using that code, you need to distribute the source of your software as well (a bit imprecise). If you want to get a better picture of the situation, read up on the licenses and what they do, specifically the term "copyleft".

robertlagrant 4y ago
That's why OSS is not about the contents of more restrictive licences (as you say, copyleft is a good example), but about the broadest definition that applies to all of them. More specialised sub-types can have more conditions, but then we should speak about those sub-types directly. I make this point because it causes confusion. Saying "my OSS project is being run by others for money and I get none of it" is confusing, as it uses the supertype. Using the subtype is clearer, and even self-explanatory: "my project I licenced so others can make money from it while giving me none is being run by others to make money from it and I get none". That may be a bad situation, but at least the reasons are now clear.

layer8 4y ago

This actually has been thought about before, in the context of remixes, collages, etc. The essential question is how much of the originality of the original work(s) constitutes the originality of the new/derived work. If it is little enough, then it’s okay. The issue with AI models is that they have no way of assessing originality and tracking the transfer of originality.

uuuguaii 4y ago

> Yeah on the one hand, isn't opening your source all about not really minding what happens to it after that? No! That's a gross misrepresentation of what open sourcing is. It's the offer of a deal. You publish the source code and in return for looking at it and using it for sth, I have obligations. Like attribution and licensing requirements regarding derived works.

AmericanChopper 4y ago

The term is being used here to imply that the generated code is somehow bypassing the licensing requirements, which isn’t necessarily true, and certainly isn’t a substantiated claim. You can read licensed code, learn from it, and then write your own code derived from that learning, without having committed a copyright violation. You can also read licensed code, directly copy paste it into your codebase, and still not have committed a copyright violation, as long as you did so in a way that constituted fair use (which copy-pasting snippets certainly would). There’s no copyright issue here at all, and rationally speaking there aren’t any legitimate misuse of open source concerns either. If these people were honest they’d just admit to feeling threatened by AI, but nobody would care about that, so they just try to manufacture some fake moral panic.