4 ms·
> No one wants their work stolen to train ais and then monetised for not even a mention in exchange. I feel (or perhaps hope) the spirit of FOSS precludes the
by Cpoll 3y ago
> No one wants their work stolen to train ais and then monetised for not even a mention in exchange.
I feel (or perhaps hope) the spirit of FOSS precludes the notion of "stealing." Besides, open source is no stranger to being monetized for the bare minimum mention required by whatever license.
- dolni 3y agoWhat are you on about? A significant portion of open source software is GPL licensed. Taking GPL'd code and redistributing it without making the source available IS stealing. It is community code. If you want to use it, you have to give back. Otherwise pick something with a BSD or MIT license.
- Cpoll 3y agoThat's putting the cart before the horse. FSF's goal with GPL was to make all software free. Removing or sealing off projects is antithetical to that. That's what I'm getting at. I should have been more clear, my point wasn't really on the semantics (and inexactitude) of "stealing." I can agree with your usage in this context.
- j1elo 3y ago> Taking GPL'd code and redistributing it without making the source available IS ... copyright infringement. Against which you might want to lawyer up and sue in court, if you feel litigious (and have have deep pockets to pay for the expenses, or someone else does it for you). But is nowhere as clear cut as stealing, like you mentioned.
- dolni 3y agoIt is stealing in the same way that pirating software is stealing. No more or less than that.
- rurp 3y agoUnfortunately LLMs directly undercut the work of the people and companies who produced the training material. Releasing a bunch of art, writing, or code into the world for others to use is starting to lead to AI models that threaten to take work away from the original producers.