4 ms·
Should we move to modified versions of FOSS licenses that forbid AI training? Found this: https://github.com/non-ai-licenses/non-ai-licenses https://github.com
by bsza 2y ago
Should we move to modified versions of FOSS licenses that forbid AI training?
Found this: https://github.com/non-ai-licenses/non-ai-licenses https://github.com/non-ai-licenses/non-ai-licenses
Legally sound or not, these should at least prevent your code from being included in Copilot's training data, hopefully without affecting any other use case. I'm going to use one of these next time I start a new project.
- hardwaresofton 2y agoNote that wouldn’t be F/OSS — maybe OSS but the F wouldn’t be there.
- bsza 2y agoYes, that is clear. But personally I wouldn't want to write FOSS code anyway until Copilot learns to properly attribute FOSS code. Switching to a more permissive license later on shouldn't be an issue.
- cmeacham98 2y agoIf copilot is ruled fair use it doesn't matter what your license is, fair use superceeds it.
- gpm 2y ago> Legally sound or not, these should at least prevent your code from being included in Copilot's training data Has microsoft said this or something?
- bsza 2y agoI assumed (heard somewhere) that they only include open source repos in the training data. Turns out I was wrong. They don't care. https://web.archive.org/web/20210708165143/https://twitter.com/NoraDotCodes/status/1412741339771461635 https://web.archive.org/web/20210708165143/https://twitter.c...
- stale2002 2y agoYou can write whatever words you want on a piece of paper or uploaded to the info section of a GitHub repo. That doesn't mean anyone has to follow it. If it's legal to train on other people's stuff, without their permission, this would still apply to your code even if your code includes a license that said "I double extra declare that you can't train AI on this!!".