4 ms·
The title is true, but the claim that coedium is not violating licenses is false. Many licenses still require attribution and Coedium is violating them.
by goodpoint 4y ago
The title is true, but the claim that coedium is not violating licenses is false.
Many licenses still require attribution and Coedium is violating them.
- epylar 4y agoThe crux of this is at what point is the code being copied, and is that copying allowed under the license? For example, maybe -- * Training an AI with the code is allowed legally. * Storing model weights is allowed legally. * Querying the AI with those model weights is allowed legally. Or maybe not.
- challengedchip 4y agoIt seems like a stretch to argue that the model isn't "a work based on" GPL code when that GPL code is an input to a deterministic algorithm from which the model is produced. So, my bet is on point #1. The only ambiguity as far as I can tell is GPL covers "source code", "machine-readable Corresponding Source", and "object code form", and it's not explicit whether vector-fields count as any of those things. I doubt anyone would seriously argue that zipping and then un-zipping some GPL source code means you don't need to respect the original license. LLMs are different in that they're lossy compared to the zip format - does the nature of this lossiness invalidate the intent of the GPL's original language? I doubt it.
- goodpoint 4y agoAgain, this is not about GPL only. Even MIT requires attribution.
- abigail95 4y agoDid the accept the license terms or are they using it under fair use?