3 ms·

At first I was going to comment how much I personally avoid the AGPL, but now you've got me thinking, technically, any LLM training off AGPL code or even GPL or

At first I was going to comment how much I personally avoid the AGPL, but now you've got me thinking, technically, any LLM training off AGPL code or even GPL or similar code is very likely violating those licenses regardless of how it is worded. The GPL already makes it so you cannot translate to another programming language to circumvent the license if I remember correctly. The AGPL should have such a similar clause.

LordDragonfang 1y ago
> The GPL already makes it so you cannot translate to another programming language to circumvent the license The operative words are the last four there. GPL, and all other software licenses (copyleft or not), can only bind you as strongly as the underlying copyright law. They are providing a copyright license that grants the licensee favorable terms, but it's still fundamentally the same framework. Anything which is fair use under copyright is also going to be fair use under the GPL (and LLMs are probably transformative enough to be fair use, though that remains to be seen.)
- tpmoney 1y ago
  > and LLMs are probably transformative enough to be fair use, though that remains to be seen. Arguably, at least in the US, it has been seen. Unless someone comes up with a novel argument not already advanced in the Anthropic case about why training an AI on otherwise legally acquired material is not transformative enough to be fair use, I don't see how you could read the ruling any other way.
  - 1gn15 1y ago
    I think people are holding on to hope that it gets appealed. Though you're right, the gavel has already fallen; training is fair use.
Zambyte 1y ago
If LLM training violates AGPL, it violates MIT. People focus too much on the copyleft terms of the *GPL licenses. MIT, and most permissive licenses, require attribution. Honestly with how much focus there tends to be on *GPL in these discussions, I get the feeling that MIT style licenses tend to be the most frequently violated, because people treat it as public domain.
- giancarlostoro 1y ago
  This is a good call out. What would it fundamentally change? MIT is a few hairs away from just publishing something under public domain is it not? There's the whole "there's no warranty or liability if this code blows up your potato" bit of the MIT, but good luck trying to reverse engineer from the LLM which project was responsible for your vibe coding a potato into exploding.

LordDragonfang 1y ago

> The GPL already makes it so you cannot translate to another programming language to circumvent the license The operative words are the last four there. GPL, and all other software licenses (copyleft or not), can only bind you as strongly as the underlying copyright law. They are providing a copyright license that grants the licensee favorable terms, but it's still fundamentally the same framework. Anything which is fair use under copyright is also going to be fair use under the GPL (and LLMs are probably transformative enough to be fair use, though that remains to be seen.)

tpmoney 1y ago
> and LLMs are probably transformative enough to be fair use, though that remains to be seen. Arguably, at least in the US, it has been seen. Unless someone comes up with a novel argument not already advanced in the Anthropic case about why training an AI on otherwise legally acquired material is not transformative enough to be fair use, I don't see how you could read the ruling any other way.
- 1gn15 1y ago
  I think people are holding on to hope that it gets appealed. Though you're right, the gavel has already fallen; training is fair use.

Zambyte 1y ago

If LLM training violates AGPL, it violates MIT. People focus too much on the copyleft terms of the *GPL licenses. MIT, and most permissive licenses, require attribution. Honestly with how much focus there tends to be on *GPL in these discussions, I get the feeling that MIT style licenses tend to be the most frequently violated, because people treat it as public domain.

giancarlostoro 1y ago
This is a good call out. What would it fundamentally change? MIT is a few hairs away from just publishing something under public domain is it not? There's the whole "there's no warranty or liability if this code blows up your potato" bit of the MIT, but good luck trying to reverse engineer from the LLM which project was responsible for your vibe coding a potato into exploding.