4 ms·

Unfortunately not how it works, or at least not to the extend you wish it to be. One can train a model exclusively on source code from the linux kernel (GPL) a

Unfortunately not how it works, or at least not to the extend you wish it to be. One can train a model exclusively on source code from the linux kernel (GPL) and then generate a bunch of C programs or libraries from that. And they could publish them under MIT license as long as they don't reproduce any identifiable sections from the linux kernel. It does not matter where the model learned how to program.

LunaSea 2y ago
You're mistaken. If I write code with a license that says that using this code for AI training is forbidden then OpenAI is directly going against this by scraping websites indiscriminately.
- Lichtso 2y ago
  Sure, you can write all kinds of stuff in a license, but it is simply plain prose at that point. Not enforcable. There is a reason why it is generally advised to go with the established licenses and not invent your own, similarly to how you should not roll your own cryptography: Because it most likely won't work as intended. e.g. License: This comment is licensed under my custom L*a license. Any user with an username starting with "L" and ending in "a" is forbidden from reading my comment and producing replies based on what I have written. ... see?
  - LunaSea 2y ago
    You can absolutely write a license that contains the clauses I mentioned and it would be enforceable. Sorry, but the onus is on OpenAI to read the licenses not the creator. And throwing your hands in the air and saying "oh you can't do that in a license" is also of little use.
    - CaptainFever 2y ago
      No, it would not be enforceable. Your license can only give additional rights to users. It cannot restrict rights that users already have (e.g. fair use rights in the US, or AI training rights like in the EU or SG).
      - LunaSea 2y ago
        How does Fair Use consider commercial usage of the full content in the US?
        CaptainFever 2y ago
        It's unknown yet, but the main point is that the inputs don't matter, as long as the output does not replicate the full content, it is fine.
    - Lichtso 2y ago
      > You can absolutely write a license that contains the clauses I mentioned and it would be enforceable. A license (copyright law) is not a contract (contract law). Simply publishing something does not make the whole world enter into a contract with you. Others first have to explicitly agree to do so. > Sorry, but the onus is on OpenAI to read the licenses not the creator. They can ignore it because they never agreed to it in the first place. > And throwing your hands in the air and saying "oh you can't do that in a license" is also of little use. It is very useful to know what works and what does not. That way you don't trick yourself and your work to be safe, don't get caught by surprise if you are in fact not and can think of alternatives instead. BTW, a thing you can do (which CaptainFever mentioned) and lots of services do because licenses are so weak is to make people sign up with an account and have them enter a ToS agreement instead.
      - LunaSea 2y ago
        > They can ignore it because they never agreed to it in the first place. They did by accessing and copying the code. Same as a human cloning a repository and using it's content or someone accessing a website with Terms of Use. No signed contract is needed here.
        CaptainFever 2y ago
        > They did by accessing and copying the code. By default, copying is disallowed because of copyright. Your license provides them a right to copy the code, perhaps within certain restrictions. However, sometimes copying is allowed, such as fair use (I covered this in another comment I sent you). This would allow them to copy the code regardless of the license. > Same as a human cloning a repository and using it's content or someone accessing a website with Terms of Use. I've covered the cloning/copying part already, but "I agree to this ToS by continuing to browse this webpage" is called a clickwrap agreement. Its enforceability is dubious. I think the LinkedIn case showed that it only applied if HiQ actually explicitly agreed to it by signing up.
jeremyjh 2y ago
That is not relevant to the comment you are responding to. Courts have been finding that scraping a website in violation of its terms of service is a liability, regardless of what you do with the content. We are not only talking about copyright.
- CaptainFever 2y ago
  True, but ToSes don't apply if you don't explicitly agree with it (e.g. by signing up for an account). So that's not relevant in the case of publicly available content.

LunaSea 2y ago

You're mistaken. If I write code with a license that says that using this code for AI training is forbidden then OpenAI is directly going against this by scraping websites indiscriminately.

Lichtso 2y ago
Sure, you can write all kinds of stuff in a license, but it is simply plain prose at that point. Not enforcable. There is a reason why it is generally advised to go with the established licenses and not invent your own, similarly to how you should not roll your own cryptography: Because it most likely won't work as intended. e.g. License: This comment is licensed under my custom L*a license. Any user with an username starting with "L" and ending in "a" is forbidden from reading my comment and producing replies based on what I have written. ... see?
- LunaSea 2y ago
  You can absolutely write a license that contains the clauses I mentioned and it would be enforceable. Sorry, but the onus is on OpenAI to read the licenses not the creator. And throwing your hands in the air and saying "oh you can't do that in a license" is also of little use.
  - CaptainFever 2y ago
    No, it would not be enforceable. Your license can only give additional rights to users. It cannot restrict rights that users already have (e.g. fair use rights in the US, or AI training rights like in the EU or SG).
    - LunaSea 2y ago
      How does Fair Use consider commercial usage of the full content in the US?
      - CaptainFever 2y ago
        It's unknown yet, but the main point is that the inputs don't matter, as long as the output does not replicate the full content, it is fine.
  - Lichtso 2y ago
    > You can absolutely write a license that contains the clauses I mentioned and it would be enforceable. A license (copyright law) is not a contract (contract law). Simply publishing something does not make the whole world enter into a contract with you. Others first have to explicitly agree to do so. > Sorry, but the onus is on OpenAI to read the licenses not the creator. They can ignore it because they never agreed to it in the first place. > And throwing your hands in the air and saying "oh you can't do that in a license" is also of little use. It is very useful to know what works and what does not. That way you don't trick yourself and your work to be safe, don't get caught by surprise if you are in fact not and can think of alternatives instead. BTW, a thing you can do (which CaptainFever mentioned) and lots of services do because licenses are so weak is to make people sign up with an account and have them enter a ToS agreement instead.
    - LunaSea 2y ago
      > They can ignore it because they never agreed to it in the first place. They did by accessing and copying the code. Same as a human cloning a repository and using it's content or someone accessing a website with Terms of Use. No signed contract is needed here.
      - CaptainFever 2y ago
        > They did by accessing and copying the code. By default, copying is disallowed because of copyright. Your license provides them a right to copy the code, perhaps within certain restrictions. However, sometimes copying is allowed, such as fair use (I covered this in another comment I sent you). This would allow them to copy the code regardless of the license. > Same as a human cloning a repository and using it's content or someone accessing a website with Terms of Use. I've covered the cloning/copying part already, but "I agree to this ToS by continuing to browse this webpage" is called a clickwrap agreement. Its enforceability is dubious. I think the LinkedIn case showed that it only applied if HiQ actually explicitly agreed to it by signing up.

jeremyjh 2y ago

That is not relevant to the comment you are responding to. Courts have been finding that scraping a website in violation of its terms of service is a liability, regardless of what you do with the content. We are not only talking about copyright.

CaptainFever 2y ago
True, but ToSes don't apply if you don't explicitly agree with it (e.g. by signing up for an account). So that's not relevant in the case of publicly available content.