8 ms·

Great article but I don't really agree with their take on GPL regarding this paragraph: > The spirit of the GPL is to promote the free sharing and development

by Orygin 11mo ago

Great article but I don't really agree with their take on GPL regarding this paragraph: > The spirit of the GPL is to promote the free sharing and development of software [...] the reality is that they are proceeding in a different vector from the direction of code sharing idealized by GPL. If only the theory of GPL propagation to models walks alone, in reality, only data exclusion and closing off to avoid litigation risks will progress, and there is a fear that it will not lead to the expansion of free software culture. The spirit of the GPL is the freedom of the user, not the code being freely shared. The virality is a byproduct to ensure the software is not stolen from their users. If you just want your code to be shared and used without restrictions, use MIT or some other license. > What is important is how to realize the “freedom of software,” which is the philosophy of open source Freedom of software means nothing. Freedoms are for humans not immaterial code. Users get the freedom to enjoy the software how they like. Washing the code through an AI to purge it from its license goes against the open source philosophy. (I know this may be a mistranslation, but it goes in the same direction as the rest of the article). I also don't agree with the arguments that since a lot of things are included in the model, the GPL code is only a small part of the whole, and that means it's okay. Well if I take 1 GPL function and include it in my project, no matter its size, I would have to license as GPL. Where is the line? Why would my software which only contains a single function not be fair use?

froh 11mo ago
> The spirit of the GPL is the freedom of the user, not the code being freely shared. who do you mean by "user"? the spirit is that the person who actually uses the software also has the freedom to modify it, and that the users recovering these modifications have the same rights. is that what you meant? and while technically that's the spirit of the GPL, the license is not only about users, but about a _relationship_, that of the user and the software and what the user is allowed to do with the software. it thus makes sense to talk about "software freedom". last not least, about a single GPL function --- many GPL _libraries_ are licensed less restrictively, LGPL.
- m463 11mo ago
  I don't think you understand the GPL. > "the user is allowed to do with the software" The GPL does not restrict what the user does with the software. It can be USED for anything. But it does restrict how you redistribute it. You have responsibilities if you redistribute it. You must provide the source code, and pass on the same freedoms you received to the users you redistribute it to.
  - gizajob 11mo ago
    Thinking on though, if the models are trained on any GPL code then one could consider that they contain that GPL code, and are constantly and continually updating and modifying that code, thus everything the model subsequently outputs and distributes should come under the GPL too. It’s far from sufficient that, say, OpenAI have a page on their website to redistribute the code they consume in their models if such code becomes part of the model’s training data that is resident in memory every time it produces new code for users. In the spirit of the GPL all that derivative code seems to also come under the GPL, and has to be made available for free, even if upon every request the generated code is somehow novel or unique to that user.
    - marcus_holmes 11mo ago
      Riffing on this: If the LLM can reproduce the entire GPL'd code, with licence and attribution intact, then that would satisfy the GPL, correct? If the LLM can invent new code, inspired by but not copied from the GPL'd code, that new code does not require a GPL licence. This is essentially the same as we humans do: I read some GPL code and go "huh, neat architecture!" and then a year later solve a similar problem using an architecture inspired by that code. This is not copying, and does not require me to GPL the code I'm producing. But if I copy-paste a function from the GPL code into my code base, I need to respect the licence conditions and GPL at least part of my code base. I think the argument that the author is talking about is if the model itself should be GPL'd because it contains copies of GPL'd code that can be reproduced. I don't buy this because that GPL code is not being run as part of the model's functioning. To use an analogy: if I create a code storage system, and then use it to store some GPL code, I don't have to GPL the code storage system itself. As long as it can reproduce the GPL code together with its licence and attribution, then the GPL is not being infringed at any point. The system is not using or running the GPL code itself, it is just storing the GPL code. This is what the LLM is doing.
CamperBob2 11mo ago
The GPL arose from Stallman's frustration at not having access to the source code for a printer driver that was causing him grief. In a world where he could have just said "Please create a PDP-whatever driver for an IBM-whatever printer," there never would have been a GPL. In that sense AI represents the fulfillment of his vision, not a refutation or violation. I'd be surprised if he saw it that way, of course.
- saurik 11mo ago
  But that isn't the same code that you were running before. And like, let's not forget GPLv3: "please give me the code for a mobile OS that could run on an iPhone" does not in any way help me modify the code running on MY iPhone.
  - CamperBob2 11mo ago
    Sure it does. Just tell the model to change whatever you want changed. You won't need access to the high-level code, any more than you need access to the CPU's microcode now. We're a few years away from that, but it will happen unless someone powerful blocks it.
    - dzaima 11mo ago
      I believe the point was that iPhones don't even allow running custom code even if you have the code; whereas GPLv3 mandates that any conveyed form of a work must be replacable by the user. So unless LLMs easily spit out an infinite stream of 0days to exploit to circumvent that, they won't help here.
- belorn 11mo ago
  The safeguards will prevent the AI from reproducing the proprietary drivers for the IBM-whatever printer, and it will not provide code that breaks the DRM that exist to prevent third-party drivers from working with the printer. There will however be no such safeguards or filters to prevent IBM to write a proprietary driver for their next printer, using existing GPL drivers as a building block. Code will only ever go in one direction here.
themafia 11mo ago
> The virality is a byproduct to ensure the software is not stolen from their users. If Microsoft misappropriates GPL code how exactly is that "stealing" from me, the user, of that code? I'm not deprived in any way, the author is, so I can't make sense of your premise here. > Freedom of software means nothing. Software is information. Does "freedom of information" mean nothing? I think you're narrowing concepts here into something not particularly useful or reflective of reality. > Users get the freedom to enjoy the software how they like. The freedom is to modify the code for my own purposes. This is not at all required to plainly "enjoy" the software. I instead "enjoy a particular benefit." > Why would my software which only contains a single function not be fair use? Because fair use implies educational, informational, or transformational outputs. Your software is none of those things.
- inlined 11mo ago
  As a user I suffer from not being able to freely use or derive my own work from Microsoft’s
  - reactordev 11mo ago
    This. People conflate consumer to user. A user in the sense of GPL is a programmer or technical person whom the software (including source) is intended for. Not necessarily a “user of an app” but a user of this “suite of source code”.
    - Brian_K_White 11mo ago
      Except really the whole point is it explicitly and actively makes no distinction. Every random user has 100% of the same rights as any developer or vendor.
      - xorcist 11mo ago
        A completely level playing field. There's probably never been a more perfect free market than that in free software. It turns out that most people who say that value free market capitalism never really did.
faxmeyourcode 11mo ago
There are many misconceptions of the GPL, gnu, and free software movement. I love the idealism of free software and you hit the nail on the head. Below are the four freedoms for those who are interested. Straight from the horse's mouth: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2). The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

by Orygin 11mo ago

froh 11mo ago

> The spirit of the GPL is the freedom of the user, not the code being freely shared. who do you mean by "user"? the spirit is that the person who actually uses the software also has the freedom to modify it, and that the users recovering these modifications have the same rights. is that what you meant? and while technically that's the spirit of the GPL, the license is not only about users, but about a _relationship_, that of the user and the software and what the user is allowed to do with the software. it thus makes sense to talk about "software freedom". last not least, about a single GPL function --- many GPL _libraries_ are licensed less restrictively, LGPL.

m463 11mo ago
I don't think you understand the GPL. > "the user is allowed to do with the software" The GPL does not restrict what the user does with the software. It can be USED for anything. But it does restrict how you redistribute it. You have responsibilities if you redistribute it. You must provide the source code, and pass on the same freedoms you received to the users you redistribute it to.
- gizajob 11mo ago
  Thinking on though, if the models are trained on any GPL code then one could consider that they contain that GPL code, and are constantly and continually updating and modifying that code, thus everything the model subsequently outputs and distributes should come under the GPL too. It’s far from sufficient that, say, OpenAI have a page on their website to redistribute the code they consume in their models if such code becomes part of the model’s training data that is resident in memory every time it produces new code for users. In the spirit of the GPL all that derivative code seems to also come under the GPL, and has to be made available for free, even if upon every request the generated code is somehow novel or unique to that user.
  - marcus_holmes 11mo ago
    Riffing on this: If the LLM can reproduce the entire GPL'd code, with licence and attribution intact, then that would satisfy the GPL, correct? If the LLM can invent new code, inspired by but not copied from the GPL'd code, that new code does not require a GPL licence. This is essentially the same as we humans do: I read some GPL code and go "huh, neat architecture!" and then a year later solve a similar problem using an architecture inspired by that code. This is not copying, and does not require me to GPL the code I'm producing. But if I copy-paste a function from the GPL code into my code base, I need to respect the licence conditions and GPL at least part of my code base. I think the argument that the author is talking about is if the model itself should be GPL'd because it contains copies of GPL'd code that can be reproduced. I don't buy this because that GPL code is not being run as part of the model's functioning. To use an analogy: if I create a code storage system, and then use it to store some GPL code, I don't have to GPL the code storage system itself. As long as it can reproduce the GPL code together with its licence and attribution, then the GPL is not being infringed at any point. The system is not using or running the GPL code itself, it is just storing the GPL code. This is what the LLM is doing.

CamperBob2 11mo ago

The GPL arose from Stallman's frustration at not having access to the source code for a printer driver that was causing him grief. In a world where he could have just said "Please create a PDP-whatever driver for an IBM-whatever printer," there never would have been a GPL. In that sense AI represents the fulfillment of his vision, not a refutation or violation. I'd be surprised if he saw it that way, of course.

saurik 11mo ago
But that isn't the same code that you were running before. And like, let's not forget GPLv3: "please give me the code for a mobile OS that could run on an iPhone" does not in any way help me modify the code running on MY iPhone.
- CamperBob2 11mo ago
  Sure it does. Just tell the model to change whatever you want changed. You won't need access to the high-level code, any more than you need access to the CPU's microcode now. We're a few years away from that, but it will happen unless someone powerful blocks it.
  - dzaima 11mo ago
    I believe the point was that iPhones don't even allow running custom code even if you have the code; whereas GPLv3 mandates that any conveyed form of a work must be replacable by the user. So unless LLMs easily spit out an infinite stream of 0days to exploit to circumvent that, they won't help here.
belorn 11mo ago
The safeguards will prevent the AI from reproducing the proprietary drivers for the IBM-whatever printer, and it will not provide code that breaks the DRM that exist to prevent third-party drivers from working with the printer. There will however be no such safeguards or filters to prevent IBM to write a proprietary driver for their next printer, using existing GPL drivers as a building block. Code will only ever go in one direction here.

themafia 11mo ago

> The virality is a byproduct to ensure the software is not stolen from their users. If Microsoft misappropriates GPL code how exactly is that "stealing" from me, the user, of that code? I'm not deprived in any way, the author is, so I can't make sense of your premise here. > Freedom of software means nothing. Software is information. Does "freedom of information" mean nothing? I think you're narrowing concepts here into something not particularly useful or reflective of reality. > Users get the freedom to enjoy the software how they like. The freedom is to modify the code for my own purposes. This is not at all required to plainly "enjoy" the software. I instead "enjoy a particular benefit." > Why would my software which only contains a single function not be fair use? Because fair use implies educational, informational, or transformational outputs. Your software is none of those things.

inlined 11mo ago
As a user I suffer from not being able to freely use or derive my own work from Microsoft’s
- reactordev 11mo ago
  This. People conflate consumer to user. A user in the sense of GPL is a programmer or technical person whom the software (including source) is intended for. Not necessarily a “user of an app” but a user of this “suite of source code”.
  - Brian_K_White 11mo ago
    Except really the whole point is it explicitly and actively makes no distinction. Every random user has 100% of the same rights as any developer or vendor.
    - xorcist 11mo ago
      A completely level playing field. There's probably never been a more perfect free market than that in free software. It turns out that most people who say that value free market capitalism never really did.

faxmeyourcode 11mo ago

There are many misconceptions of the GPL, gnu, and free software movement. I love the idealism of free software and you hit the nail on the head. Below are the four freedoms for those who are interested. Straight from the horse's mouth: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2). The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.