2 ms·

While there are requirements on making copies in the FDL, I think it is extraordinarily unlikely that a court would find that a company making internal copies w

by gpm 7mo ago

While there are requirements on making copies in the FDL, I think it is extraordinarily unlikely that a court would find that a company making internal copies would violate the license when those restrictions are just along the lines of "and you must include a copy of the license". And the FSF would be extremely foolish to ever pursue such a suit, because extremely ordinary non-AI related activities involving working with internal local documents also make copies in a similar way. If OpenAI violated the FDL by doing so then the FDL is a foot gun of a license that companies would be well advised to avoid. The only suit that makes any sense would be the one against using the FDL licensed documents to train the not-FDL licensed AI... and the judge already rejected that in this case.

kube-system 7mo ago
The requirements being easy to meet doesn't absolve someone from having to follow them. And the FSF clearly says they aren't pursuing a suit in this case. I'm not suggesting that filing suit here would make sense, rather, that the FSF does care deeply and fundamentally about requiring requiring copyleft restrictions -- they vehemently don't tolerate permissive use under their licenses. > If OpenAI violated the FDL by doing so then the FDL is a foot gun of a license that companies would be well advised to avoid. That has been said about a lot of FSFs licenses, and in fact, many companies do avoid them.
- throwaway7356 7mo ago
  > The requirements being easy to meet doesn't absolve someone from having to follow them. Everybody ignores some GPL requirements. For example the following one: > a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices > stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. Look at any GPL project. Do they have "prominent notices" in all files modified by someone who is not the initial author? For every person who modified them? How long would be the list of dates alone for files that are often modified?
  - kube-system 7mo ago
    Another great example of a footgun. Those terms did make more sense in the days before source control when it was common practice to do that anyway, and in many older projects you will find that they were followed. Ultimately, the terms of the license do matter if someone wants to enforce them.

by gpm 7mo ago

kube-system 7mo ago

The requirements being easy to meet doesn't absolve someone from having to follow them. And the FSF clearly says they aren't pursuing a suit in this case. I'm not suggesting that filing suit here would make sense, rather, that the FSF does care deeply and fundamentally about requiring requiring copyleft restrictions -- they vehemently don't tolerate permissive use under their licenses. > If OpenAI violated the FDL by doing so then the FDL is a foot gun of a license that companies would be well advised to avoid. That has been said about a lot of FSFs licenses, and in fact, many companies do avoid them.

throwaway7356 7mo ago
> The requirements being easy to meet doesn't absolve someone from having to follow them. Everybody ignores some GPL requirements. For example the following one: > a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices > stating that you changed the files and the date of any change. Look at any GPL project. Do they have "prominent notices" in all files modified by someone who is not the initial author? For every person who modified them? How long would be the list of dates alone for files that are often modified?
- kube-system 7mo ago
  Another great example of a footgun. Those terms did make more sense in the days before source control when it was common practice to do that anyway, and in many older projects you will find that they were followed. Ultimately, the terms of the license do matter if someone wants to enforce them.