4 ms·

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 pe

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.

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.