6 ms·

Any license that discriminates based on use case would not qualify as open source under the Open Source Initiative definition, nor as free software under the FS

Any license that discriminates based on use case would not qualify as open source under the Open Source Initiative definition, nor as free software under the FSF definition. You also shouldn't expect for your project/code to be reused by or incorporated into any free or open-source projects, since your license would be incompatible. You can release software under whatever license you want, though whether any restriction would be legally enforceable is another matter.

pxc 9mo ago
> Any license that discriminates based on use case would not qualify as open source under the Open Source Initiative definition, nor as free software under the FSF definition. Freedom 0 is about the freedom to run the software "for any purpose", not "use" the software for any purpose. Training an LLM on source code isn't running the software. (Not sure about the OSD and don't feel like reviewing it.) Anyway, you could probably have a license that explicitly requires AIs trained on a work to be licensed under a compatible free software license or something like that. Conditions like that are comparable to the AGPL or something, adding requirements but still respecting freedom 0. But that's not an "anti-AI" license so much as one that tries to avert AI-based copyright laundering.
- mattmcal 9mo ago
  Depending on how the courts weigh in on the role of fair use in AI training, it's possible that a "copyleft for AI" clause would end up either redundant with the existing GPL, or legally void. It would be crazy complicated to enforce if it does hold water though.
  - pxc 9mo ago
    Agreed on all points, unfortunately. :(
- GuB-42 9mo ago
  If training AI is a copyright exemption, and it is likely to be the case, then the license is irrelevant. If it is not then the trained AI is a derivative work, which the license should allow as long as it is publishable under the same license to be considered open source or free software. In any case, I don't think an anti-AI clause would serve a meaningful purpose on open source software. You can however make your own "source available" license that explicitly prevents its use on AI training, and I am sure that some of them exist, but I don't think it will do much good, as it is likely to be unenforceable (because of copyright exemptions) and will make it incompatible with many things open source.
  - spwa4 9mo ago
    Laws cannot be changed retroactively. So if AI training is a copyright extension that can only happen starting sometime next year. So the consequences of these companies' choices are already set in stone, even if they're not known yet. The GPL requires that all materials to reproduce any derivative work be made available at cost (and all models can reproduce linux kernel GPL data structures, including the private parts, character-by-character). So do I get access to OpenAI's full training data? Or do I get to make and publish Mickey Mouse cartoons by training an AI on Disney movies then publishing the model output. Hell, I could even make better versions of old Disney movies, competing with half of Disney's current projects! It seems to me one of these must be true. So which is it?
    - Hizonner 9mo ago
      Um, no. Copyright puts specific restrictions on what you can do with work. Those restrictions are described by certain words. The question is whether the existing restrictions cover training AI. That's a matter of interpretation, but once an interpretation is accepted, it is understood as what copyright always meant. Training AI is probably not a copyright violation because it never was one to begin with.
      - spwa4 9mo ago
        The comments of the (German) judge in this case seem to indicate the judge doesn't understand why any of the defendants even thought training AI wasn't a violation (at least not when taken to the point it can exactly reproduce and create derivative works to existing works. Maybe that's why OpenAI is trying to make that harder now. Still trivial to make it violate that rule though). https://www.dw.com/en/openai-loses-song-lyrics-copyright-case-in-german-court/a-74698240 https://www.dw.com/en/openai-loses-song-lyrics-copyright-cas... Note that OpenAI has now testified that they indeed used copyrighted works to train their models. The outcome of the case is that both training AI models using copyrighted work and providing AI model outputs that are derivative of some copyrighted work are copyright violations, and would mean model owners have to respect licenses (ie. compensating the authors) The case can still be appealed, so it is not final. On the other hand, if I'm reading WTO copyright treaty rules correctly, this ruling applies in the US. In the US things seem to be going in a similar direction: https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyright/article/98961-authors-class-action-lawsuit-against-openai-moves-forward.html https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyrig... Seems to me this can still easily go the way the authors want it to in the US. And in theory, it doesn't even have to, OpenAI lost. Yes, it can be fought on appeal, but I've always heard that winning an appeal after losing a case is 10x harder than winning that case in the first place. And we'll know in early January if OpenAI fights it at all, so it's not like they have a lot of time left.
on_the_train 9mo ago
A random "initiative" does not have the power to redefine words. If the source is available, it's open source.
- dkdcio 9mo ago
  that would be “source available” software, and it’s not a random initiative there is disagreement on exactly what “open source” means, but generally clear boundaries between open source and source available software in licensing and spirit of the given project. e.g. MIT and Apache 2.0 are open source, BSL is source available. edit: PERSONALLY, I think if you don’t welcome outside contributions, it isn’t open source; see others’ responses for disagreement on this (it’s not a part of the standard definition)
  - bigstrat2003 9mo ago
    > if you don’t welcome outside contributions, it isn’t open source That isn't true. Open source refers to the ability to make use of the source code if you wish, not the ability to send pull requests. SQLite is open source (public domain even!), but does not accept contributions from outside.
    - dkdcio 9mo ago
      argh I will re-edit my comment…sorta covered by the “disagreement” bit, and I disagree on this point (it’s not open to me if you don’t openly accept contributions), but you are right
    - morpheuskafka 9mo ago
      Indeed, and it can also be free software and under a copyleft license (GPL AGPL etc) and not accept contributions. Otherwise, every project that shut down or was just a one off gist/blog post to begin with couldn't be called open source either!
  - on_the_train 9mo ago
    Open source means the source is open, ie downloadable. It's not that complicated, that can't just be made up to mean something else
hkt 9mo ago
Leaving aside the sentence case in the title, the author's post didn't capitalise open source: they clearly mean source which is open to be read freely, and from the context this can clearly be read.
- kstrauser 9mo ago
  I disagree. They said open source, so I’ll take them at their word that they mean open source. If they meant otherwise, they should’ve said that instead. This is a highly nitpicky topic where terms have important meanings. If we toss that out, it becomes impossible to discuss it.
  - hkt 9mo ago
    I've linked elsewhere to the Hippocratic License, which freely refers to itself as open source while specifically being built around refusing licensing based on ethical considerations. OSI don't own the term open source, and the simple and plain meaning of the term is clear to see. Otherwise, we wouldn't consider GPL software to be open source, because it attaches conditions on usage. That even applies to non-copyleft licenses like MIT which demand author attribution. The term open source is best read literally unless someone says "I want an OSI approved license".
    - kstrauser 9mo ago
      Free Software and Open Source are similar, but not identical: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html The GPL places no restrictions on how you can run the software. All meaningful licenses place restrictions — or, conversely, limit the permissions they grant — on how the code can be used, distributed, integrated with other projects, etc. But I disagree that the meaning of Open Source is malleable. As others here said, if we want to make a new definition, we should make a new term. In my opinion, in this case, we have. It’s Source Available, which is basically “look, but don’t touch”. And as with other brightly colored things in nature, it’s generally best to avoid it.
    - Hizonner 9mo ago
Palmik 9mo ago
It would not be discrimination to mandate that weights of any model trained in the code need to be released under similarly open license.

pxc 9mo ago

> Any license that discriminates based on use case would not qualify as open source under the Open Source Initiative definition, nor as free software under the FSF definition. Freedom 0 is about the freedom to run the software "for any purpose", not "use" the software for any purpose. Training an LLM on source code isn't running the software. (Not sure about the OSD and don't feel like reviewing it.) Anyway, you could probably have a license that explicitly requires AIs trained on a work to be licensed under a compatible free software license or something like that. Conditions like that are comparable to the AGPL or something, adding requirements but still respecting freedom 0. But that's not an "anti-AI" license so much as one that tries to avert AI-based copyright laundering.

mattmcal 9mo ago
Depending on how the courts weigh in on the role of fair use in AI training, it's possible that a "copyleft for AI" clause would end up either redundant with the existing GPL, or legally void. It would be crazy complicated to enforce if it does hold water though.
- pxc 9mo ago
  Agreed on all points, unfortunately. :(
GuB-42 9mo ago
If training AI is a copyright exemption, and it is likely to be the case, then the license is irrelevant. If it is not then the trained AI is a derivative work, which the license should allow as long as it is publishable under the same license to be considered open source or free software. In any case, I don't think an anti-AI clause would serve a meaningful purpose on open source software. You can however make your own "source available" license that explicitly prevents its use on AI training, and I am sure that some of them exist, but I don't think it will do much good, as it is likely to be unenforceable (because of copyright exemptions) and will make it incompatible with many things open source.
- spwa4 9mo ago
  Laws cannot be changed retroactively. So if AI training is a copyright extension that can only happen starting sometime next year. So the consequences of these companies' choices are already set in stone, even if they're not known yet. The GPL requires that all materials to reproduce any derivative work be made available at cost (and all models can reproduce linux kernel GPL data structures, including the private parts, character-by-character). So do I get access to OpenAI's full training data? Or do I get to make and publish Mickey Mouse cartoons by training an AI on Disney movies then publishing the model output. Hell, I could even make better versions of old Disney movies, competing with half of Disney's current projects! It seems to me one of these must be true. So which is it?
  - Hizonner 9mo ago
    Um, no. Copyright puts specific restrictions on what you can do with work. Those restrictions are described by certain words. The question is whether the existing restrictions cover training AI. That's a matter of interpretation, but once an interpretation is accepted, it is understood as what copyright always meant. Training AI is probably not a copyright violation because it never was one to begin with.
    - spwa4 9mo ago
      The comments of the (German) judge in this case seem to indicate the judge doesn't understand why any of the defendants even thought training AI wasn't a violation (at least not when taken to the point it can exactly reproduce and create derivative works to existing works. Maybe that's why OpenAI is trying to make that harder now. Still trivial to make it violate that rule though). https://www.dw.com/en/openai-loses-song-lyrics-copyright-case-in-german-court/a-74698240 https://www.dw.com/en/openai-loses-song-lyrics-copyright-cas... Note that OpenAI has now testified that they indeed used copyrighted works to train their models. The outcome of the case is that both training AI models using copyrighted work and providing AI model outputs that are derivative of some copyrighted work are copyright violations, and would mean model owners have to respect licenses (ie. compensating the authors) The case can still be appealed, so it is not final. On the other hand, if I'm reading WTO copyright treaty rules correctly, this ruling applies in the US. In the US things seem to be going in a similar direction: https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyright/article/98961-authors-class-action-lawsuit-against-openai-moves-forward.html https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/digital/copyrig... Seems to me this can still easily go the way the authors want it to in the US. And in theory, it doesn't even have to, OpenAI lost. Yes, it can be fought on appeal, but I've always heard that winning an appeal after losing a case is 10x harder than winning that case in the first place. And we'll know in early January if OpenAI fights it at all, so it's not like they have a lot of time left.

on_the_train 9mo ago

A random "initiative" does not have the power to redefine words. If the source is available, it's open source.

dkdcio 9mo ago
that would be “source available” software, and it’s not a random initiative there is disagreement on exactly what “open source” means, but generally clear boundaries between open source and source available software in licensing and spirit of the given project. e.g. MIT and Apache 2.0 are open source, BSL is source available. edit: PERSONALLY, I think if you don’t welcome outside contributions, it isn’t open source; see others’ responses for disagreement on this (it’s not a part of the standard definition)
- bigstrat2003 9mo ago
  > if you don’t welcome outside contributions, it isn’t open source That isn't true. Open source refers to the ability to make use of the source code if you wish, not the ability to send pull requests. SQLite is open source (public domain even!), but does not accept contributions from outside.
  - dkdcio 9mo ago
    argh I will re-edit my comment…sorta covered by the “disagreement” bit, and I disagree on this point (it’s not open to me if you don’t openly accept contributions), but you are right
  - morpheuskafka 9mo ago
    Indeed, and it can also be free software and under a copyleft license (GPL AGPL etc) and not accept contributions. Otherwise, every project that shut down or was just a one off gist/blog post to begin with couldn't be called open source either!
- on_the_train 9mo ago
  Open source means the source is open, ie downloadable. It's not that complicated, that can't just be made up to mean something else

hkt 9mo ago

Leaving aside the sentence case in the title, the author's post didn't capitalise open source: they clearly mean source which is open to be read freely, and from the context this can clearly be read.

kstrauser 9mo ago
I disagree. They said open source, so I’ll take them at their word that they mean open source. If they meant otherwise, they should’ve said that instead. This is a highly nitpicky topic where terms have important meanings. If we toss that out, it becomes impossible to discuss it.
- hkt 9mo ago
  I've linked elsewhere to the Hippocratic License, which freely refers to itself as open source while specifically being built around refusing licensing based on ethical considerations. OSI don't own the term open source, and the simple and plain meaning of the term is clear to see. Otherwise, we wouldn't consider GPL software to be open source, because it attaches conditions on usage. That even applies to non-copyleft licenses like MIT which demand author attribution. The term open source is best read literally unless someone says "I want an OSI approved license".
  - kstrauser 9mo ago
    Free Software and Open Source are similar, but not identical: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html The GPL places no restrictions on how you can run the software. All meaningful licenses place restrictions — or, conversely, limit the permissions they grant — on how the code can be used, distributed, integrated with other projects, etc. But I disagree that the meaning of Open Source is malleable. As others here said, if we want to make a new definition, we should make a new term. In my opinion, in this case, we have. It’s Source Available, which is basically “look, but don’t touch”. And as with other brightly colored things in nature, it’s generally best to avoid it.
  - Hizonner 9mo ago

Palmik 9mo ago

It would not be discrimination to mandate that weights of any model trained in the code need to be released under similarly open license.