5 ms·
Where's the threat? The FSF was notified that as part of the settlement in Bartz v. Anthropic they were potentially entitled to money, but in this case the work
by mjg59 7mo ago
Where's the threat? The FSF was notified that as part of the settlement in Bartz v. Anthropic they were potentially entitled to money, but in this case the works in question were released under a license that allowed free duplication and distribution so no harm was caused. There's then a note that if the FSF had been involved in such a suit they'd insist on any settlement requiring that the trained model be released under a free license. But they weren't, and they're not.
(Edit: In the event of it being changed to match the actual article title, the current subject line for this thread is " FSF Threatens Anthropic over Infringed Copyright: Share Your LLMs Freel")
- lelanthran 7mo agoIt's just an indication to model trainers that they should take care to omit FSF software from training. Not a nothing burger, but not totally insignificant either.
- mjg59 7mo agoIs it? The FSF's description of the judgement is that the training was fair use, but that the actual downloading of the material may have been a copyright infringement. What software does the FSF hold copyright to that can't be downloaded freely? Under what circumstances would the FSF be in a position to influence the nature of a settlement if they weren't harmed?
- jfoster 7mo agoIs harm necessary to show in a copyright infringement case?
- mjg59 7mo agoCopyright infringement causes harm, so if there's no harm there's no infringement. You can freely duplicate GFDLed material, so downloading it isn't an infringement. If training a model on that downloaded material is fair use then there's no infringement.
- eschaton 7mo ago[flagged]
- mjg59 7mo agoIf it's pretty fucking simple, can you point to the statement in the linked post that supports this assertion? What it says is "According to the notice, the district court ruled that using the books to train LLMs was fair use", and while I accept that this doesn't mean the same would be true for software, I don't see anything in the FSF's post that contradicts the idea that training on GPLed software would also be fair use. I'm not passing a value judgement here, I'm a former board member of the FSF and I strongly believe in the value and effectiveness of copyleft licenses, I'm just asking how you get from what's in the post to such an absolute assertion.
- boramalper 7mo agoYet another instance of people jumping to comments based on the title of the submission alone. They don't mention GPL even once in that post...
- sunnyps 7mo agoIt's pretty fucking simple: a judge needs to decide that, not armchair lawyers on HN.
- Bombthecat 7mo agoWe know AI will be pushed through. No matter the laws
- agile-gift0262 7mo agowhat I keep wondering is what kind of laws will be rendered useless with the precedent they'll cause. Can this be beginning of the end of copyright and intellectual property?
- 7mo ago
- teiferer 7mo ago> but in this case the works in question were released under a license that allowed free duplication and distribution so no harm was caused. FSF licenses contain attribution and copyleft clauses. It's "do whatever you want with it provided that you X, Y and Z". Just taking the first part without the second part is a breach of the license. It's like renting a car without paying and then claiming "well you said I can drive around with it for the rest of the day, so where is the harm?" while conveniently ignoring the payment clause. You maybe confusing this with a "public domain" license.
- Dylan16807 7mo agoThey don't need the "do whatever" permission if everything they do is fair use. They only need the downloading permission, and it's free to download.
- jcul 7mo agoThis article is talking about a book though, not software. "Sam Williams and Richard Stallman's Free as in freedom: Richard Stallman's crusade for free software" "GNU Free Documentation License (GNU FDL). This is a free license allowing use of the work for any purpose without payment." I'm not familiar with this license or how it compares to their software licenses, but it sounds closer to a public domain license.
- kennywinker 7mo agoIt sounds that way a bit from the one sentence. But that’s not the case at all. > 4. MODIFICATIONS > You may copy and distribute a Modified Version of the Document under the conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release the Modified Version under precisely this License, with the Modified Version filling the role of the Document, thus licensing distribution and modification of the Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it. In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version: Etc etc. In short, it is a copyleft license. You must also license derivative works under this license. Just fyi, the gnu fdl is (unsurprisingly) available for free online - so if you want to know what it says, you can read it!
- darkwater 7mo agoI don't like the editorialized title either but I would say that the actual post title "The FSF doesn't usually sue for copyright infringement, but when we do, we settle for freedom" and this sentence at the end " We are a small organization with limited resources and we have to pick our battles, but if the FSF were to participate in a lawsuit such as Bartz v. Anthropic and find our copyright and license violated, we would certainly request user freedom as compensation." could be seen as "threatening".