4 ms·

Nonsense. The FSF cannot receive a copyright assignment from someone who does not clearly have the rights. If it is “open” then it is not clear. Of the two oth

by geocar 3mo ago

Nonsense. The FSF cannot receive a copyright assignment from someone who does not clearly have the rights. If it is “open” then it is not clear. Of the two other parties who claim copyright, neither is the submitter; either Facebook (or whoever “made” the model) has it or the persons whose content is in the model has it. Facebook did not assign copyright of the output to the user, and neither did those others.

xlii 3mo ago
Hey, just learned that actually this post surfaced. > ...who does not clearly have the rights This claim is baseless. As I wrote in the piece and on mailing lists - it's not the 1:1 copy & paste. It was modified and it all boils to question how much of the salt makes a soup a salty one. e.g. - if I put 10.000 words into a prompt and got 500 words out of it, is the author LLM, or me? - if I got 50 lines, and modified each single one, is the author LLM, or me? IANAL - especially in US, but I have my share of experience in navigating copyright law (as most software engineers should do IMO), and I'm confident I could prove my case against the court, which I stated clearly (by claiming authorship). If someone is curious, here's when I don't claim authorship: https://github.com/mawww/kakoune/pull/5515 https://github.com/mawww/kakoune/pull/5515
- geocar 3mo ago
  > > ...who does not clearly have the rights > This claim is baseless... it all boils to question how much of the salt makes a soup a salty one. No it doesn't. The very existence of the question means it is not clear. > - if I put 10.000 words into a prompt and got 500 words out of it, is the author LLM, or me? Neither. The author is some unknown number of people whose words were scraped. > - if I got 50 lines, and modified each single one, is the author LLM, or me? Neither. The author is some unknown number of people whose words were scraped, combined possibly with you. You need all authors to agree on the rights. You would have to not just modify them, but modify them substantially to either change their meaning or criticise them, or do something because just flip a random number of bits in order to get into the running, and a judge might still disagree with you. > I'm confident I could prove my case against the court I'm not even sure you understand the stakes, because not just the authors have claim but also the persons (e.g. z.ai in your case) who assembled the model, and you just blew past both of those people like they were nothing. You're not even in third-place for rights on this work, and you don't even seem to realise that.

by geocar 3mo ago

xlii 3mo ago

Hey, just learned that actually this post surfaced. > ...who does not clearly have the rights This claim is baseless. As I wrote in the piece and on mailing lists - it's not the 1:1 copy & paste. It was modified and it all boils to question how much of the salt makes a soup a salty one. e.g. - if I put 10.000 words into a prompt and got 500 words out of it, is the author LLM, or me? - if I got 50 lines, and modified each single one, is the author LLM, or me? IANAL - especially in US, but I have my share of experience in navigating copyright law (as most software engineers should do IMO), and I'm confident I could prove my case against the court, which I stated clearly (by claiming authorship). If someone is curious, here's when I don't claim authorship: https://github.com/mawww/kakoune/pull/5515 https://github.com/mawww/kakoune/pull/5515

geocar 3mo ago
> > ...who does not clearly have the rights > This claim is baseless... it all boils to question how much of the salt makes a soup a salty one. No it doesn't. The very existence of the question means it is not clear. > - if I put 10.000 words into a prompt and got 500 words out of it, is the author LLM, or me? Neither. The author is some unknown number of people whose words were scraped. > - if I got 50 lines, and modified each single one, is the author LLM, or me? Neither. The author is some unknown number of people whose words were scraped, combined possibly with you. You need all authors to agree on the rights. You would have to not just modify them, but modify them substantially to either change their meaning or criticise them, or do something because just flip a random number of bits in order to get into the running, and a judge might still disagree with you. > I'm confident I could prove my case against the court I'm not even sure you understand the stakes, because not just the authors have claim but also the persons (e.g. z.ai in your case) who assembled the model, and you just blew past both of those people like they were nothing. You're not even in third-place for rights on this work, and you don't even seem to realise that.