3 ms·

Everyone has a price...

• vanous 3y ago
  Yes. The positive is that the code is left behind. I am sympathetic with (and sorry for) those who will not learn fast enough about the acquisition and will have their private data sucked out. That's why I posted it here, after I learned about it only today.
• maxloh 3y ago
  I am more concerned about the licensing issues. Seems that the original author recieved some external contribution in GPLv3.
  • albert180 3y ago
    He thinks that he doesn't need to care about external contributions since he wrote over 90% of the code lol
    • em-bee 3y ago
      he claims it's 99% by him and paid contributors. to verify you'd have to ask any major contributors if they have been paid.
      • albert180 3y ago
        There are many contributors in the GitHub Issue that claim that they never signed a CLA nor received any compensation
    • necovek 3y ago
      Well, to a point that's true: there is a not-clearly-defined line about what's copyrightable when it comes to the amount of text that's reproduced without explicit permission (as a matter of fact, that might be the same thing OpenAI is using as a loophole to consider their model immune to copyright claims). Basically, I can't copyright an "article" which only says "This is an article." — there is high probability of someone coming up with the exact same wording, so you can't get protections for it. How much is too much is definitely left up to the interpretation. Finally, unless one of those contributors takes him to court (external party like EFF or FSF can't protect your rights, you have to do it yourself), it's unlikely he should care. If one or two people do, there's also a relatively cheap option of rewriting just those parts too: court won't try to challenge other possible license issues.