3 ms·

>But this conversation is about the use of publicly posted information that's already out on the internet. This is a common fallacy, that having access to the

>But this conversation is about the use of publicly posted information that's already out on the internet. This is a common fallacy, that having access to the source gives you the legal right to do what you want with it, and that is not correct. The license must be followed regardless of whether it's accessible to the public. Having access to or viewing Windows source code and pirated content isn't disallowed. The thing that isn't allowed is copying it. That's what copyright laws are about. The same laws that make it illegal to copy Windows source code are exactly what the GPL are based on, copyright laws. So why do copyright laws only apply to one side here? I think there is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about how copyright and software licenses work here. Windows is able to state that the Windows source code is proprietary because it is their IP, my software is also my IP, so my terms must also be followed in order to legally use my software. >can't legally use proprietary or pirated data in AI training for the same reasons why you can't use it anywhere else. This is the same reason why you can't use GPL code in proprietary projects! The mechanisms that allow something to be proprietary are the same mechanisms that the GPL are based on, this is why it's sometimes called "copyleft".

tavavex 3y ago
> This is a common fallacy, that having access to the source gives you the legal right to do what you want with it, and that is not correct. The license must be followed regardless of whether it's accessible to the public. This isn't what the conversation was about. You started out by drawing comparisons to seeing limited-access information and clean-room reverse engineering, but what you're saying now is drastically different. Do you concede the original point? And yes, just having public access to information doesn't mean that you can do anything with it, but it contradicts the point you made originally. Besides, the way you describe licensing here makes it sound like the licensee can just ask for anything and everyone will be obligated to follow the rules. This is the crux of the argument, because copyright law has bounds and it only gives authors specific privileges, not a right to dictate anything they like. Seeing past precedent on use cases that are similar to AI, it's not unreasonable to expect restrictions on AI use to not be legally actionable - in the same way how I can't write a license to forbid my hypothetical book from being lent in libraries, or how I can't charge you $100 for reading this comment by adding fine print in the end - a court won't enforce it. > Having access to or viewing Windows source code and pirated content isn't disallowed. The thing that isn't allowed is copying it. That's what copyright laws are about. What? No, there are definitely situations in which you don't have to outright copy something to get into trouble. Source code for proprietary software can be legally treated as a trade secret, which gives it a lot of "forbidden knowledge"-type protections that don't require copying. > my software is also my IP, so my terms must also be followed in order to legally use my software Again, I'm not arguing against this, there's no double standard in that big corps can have IP, but you can't. Refer to the beginning of my post - the argument isn't whether you can have a license, but whether a licensee can ask people to not use their publicly available work in AI and have it be actionable. This isn't settled law, but you also can't just ask for anything you want in your license and have a court actually uphold it. > This is the same reason why you can't use GPL code in proprietary projects! Copying code wholesale from a GPL project is different from having that data be present in a dataset, thereby creating a barely noticeable influence on the production of new content by the algorithm. All this applies very cleanly to direct copying, but with AI, it gets a lot more complicated.

tavavex 3y ago

> This is a common fallacy, that having access to the source gives you the legal right to do what you want with it, and that is not correct. The license must be followed regardless of whether it's accessible to the public. This isn't what the conversation was about. You started out by drawing comparisons to seeing limited-access information and clean-room reverse engineering, but what you're saying now is drastically different. Do you concede the original point? And yes, just having public access to information doesn't mean that you can do anything with it, but it contradicts the point you made originally. Besides, the way you describe licensing here makes it sound like the licensee can just ask for anything and everyone will be obligated to follow the rules. This is the crux of the argument, because copyright law has bounds and it only gives authors specific privileges, not a right to dictate anything they like. Seeing past precedent on use cases that are similar to AI, it's not unreasonable to expect restrictions on AI use to not be legally actionable - in the same way how I can't write a license to forbid my hypothetical book from being lent in libraries, or how I can't charge you $100 for reading this comment by adding fine print in the end - a court won't enforce it. > Having access to or viewing Windows source code and pirated content isn't disallowed. The thing that isn't allowed is copying it. That's what copyright laws are about. What? No, there are definitely situations in which you don't have to outright copy something to get into trouble. Source code for proprietary software can be legally treated as a trade secret, which gives it a lot of "forbidden knowledge"-type protections that don't require copying. > my software is also my IP, so my terms must also be followed in order to legally use my software Again, I'm not arguing against this, there's no double standard in that big corps can have IP, but you can't. Refer to the beginning of my post - the argument isn't whether you can have a license, but whether a licensee can ask people to not use their publicly available work in AI and have it be actionable. This isn't settled law, but you also can't just ask for anything you want in your license and have a court actually uphold it. > This is the same reason why you can't use GPL code in proprietary projects! Copying code wholesale from a GPL project is different from having that data be present in a dataset, thereby creating a barely noticeable influence on the production of new content by the algorithm. All this applies very cleanly to direct copying, but with AI, it gets a lot more complicated.