5 ms·

Unfortunately, many people would answer differently depending on who it would benefit. Artists pirating productivity software and those supporting leaks of prop

Unfortunately, many people would answer differently depending on who it would benefit. Artists pirating productivity software and those supporting leaks of proprietary code are often the same people crying theft when their “property” is used to train neural networks.

aleph_minus_one 3y ago
These are different groups of people. Just one point of evidence: those people who license their original code under a copyleft license (thus the code might perhaps not be used as data to train neural networks) do accept (some concept of) copyright, since without copyright the copyleft restrictions (having to deliver the source code under an identical/suitable license for derivates of the program) could not be enforced.
- erik_seaberg 3y ago
  I wouldn’t care as much about copyleft, given no limits on redistribution and reverse engineering (which I hope would bring about better tools).
- tikhonj 3y ago
  > since without copyright the copyleft restrictions (having to deliver the source code under an identical/suitable license for derivates of the program) We could have regulations around distributing source code that are completely divorced from copyright—it could be seen as a matter of "right to repair" or transparency or just as a right on its own. I expect that people ideologically in favor of free software would prefer that to needing copyleft licenses. The fact that copyleft builds on top of copyright is a nice bit of legal judo, using the existing framework to achieve the opposite of what it's intended for—but it's ultimately just an implementation detail.
- nl 3y ago
  I license code under copyleft licenses and strongly support it being used to train neural networks. I want my code to be a learning resource, whether it be humans or machines learning from it.
  - pessimizer 3y ago
    Nobody is stopping you from putting that in your license.
    - nl 3y ago
      I believe the current license permits it under copyright law. That's certainly my reading and based on precedents like search snippets I don't have any reason to think otherwise.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  > do accept (some concept of) copyright No, they observe that there are laws called copyright laws, and people will hit you with sticks and drag you to a locked room and leave you there for years if you ignore those laws. Copyleft is a way of using copyright to force people to copy things that they don't even want to copy.
pessimizer 3y ago
I'd venture that the majority complain because it isn't reciprocal. Artists pirating productivity software are committing a crime. Leaks of proprietary code are a problem for people trying to implement the same things, because now they have to prove that they haven't seen the leak or their own work comes into question. If you're some massively capitalized corporation building an LLM however, the copyrights of little people don't mean anything.
- alphanullmeric 3y ago
  The solution is simple: abolish IP. If I’ve “taken” something from you and you still have it, nothing is being stolen. I don’t support the right to an idea.

aleph_minus_one 3y ago

These are different groups of people. Just one point of evidence: those people who license their original code under a copyleft license (thus the code might perhaps not be used as data to train neural networks) do accept (some concept of) copyright, since without copyright the copyleft restrictions (having to deliver the source code under an identical/suitable license for derivates of the program) could not be enforced.

erik_seaberg 3y ago
I wouldn’t care as much about copyleft, given no limits on redistribution and reverse engineering (which I hope would bring about better tools).
tikhonj 3y ago
> since without copyright the copyleft restrictions (having to deliver the source code under an identical/suitable license for derivates of the program) We could have regulations around distributing source code that are completely divorced from copyright—it could be seen as a matter of "right to repair" or transparency or just as a right on its own. I expect that people ideologically in favor of free software would prefer that to needing copyleft licenses. The fact that copyleft builds on top of copyright is a nice bit of legal judo, using the existing framework to achieve the opposite of what it's intended for—but it's ultimately just an implementation detail.
nl 3y ago
I license code under copyleft licenses and strongly support it being used to train neural networks. I want my code to be a learning resource, whether it be humans or machines learning from it.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  Nobody is stopping you from putting that in your license.
  - nl 3y ago
    I believe the current license permits it under copyright law. That's certainly my reading and based on precedents like search snippets I don't have any reason to think otherwise.
pessimizer 3y ago
> do accept (some concept of) copyright No, they observe that there are laws called copyright laws, and people will hit you with sticks and drag you to a locked room and leave you there for years if you ignore those laws. Copyleft is a way of using copyright to force people to copy things that they don't even want to copy.

pessimizer 3y ago

I'd venture that the majority complain because it isn't reciprocal. Artists pirating productivity software are committing a crime. Leaks of proprietary code are a problem for people trying to implement the same things, because now they have to prove that they haven't seen the leak or their own work comes into question. If you're some massively capitalized corporation building an LLM however, the copyrights of little people don't mean anything.

alphanullmeric 3y ago
The solution is simple: abolish IP. If I’ve “taken” something from you and you still have it, nothing is being stolen. I don’t support the right to an idea.