3 ms·
So can you write GPL content using Claude? MIT? Because if this condition applies to the output, I don't see how it's compatible with FOSS.
by moomin 2mo ago
So can you write GPL content using Claude? MIT? Because if this condition applies to the output, I don't see how it's compatible with FOSS.
- stingraycharles 2mo agoYes, obviously, you own the output. Training on those outputs is a violation of the service agreement, and that’s separate from who owns the outputs.
- sourdecor 2mo agoBut LLMs are being trained on GitHub libraries that leveraged Claude?
- Hamuko 2mo agoI hope I see the day I start seeing AI companies suing other AI companies for training their models on GitHub repositories that were written using the AI companies' models. If Anthropic says that I can't train using Claude's output, then surely OpenAI can't train on a repository that's 100% vibecoded with Claude.
- riffraff 2mo agoI think they care about the reasoning traces and such being used for training, not the effectively final output.
- j45 2mo agoTransferring actual and complete ownership of the output doesn’t allow any further interpretations of the use of it. That sentence seems to be in a blurry line between outright “ownership” and licensing. This type of explanation leans towards the reality being you don’t own the outputs from Claude. This kind of an explanation is like trying to be half pregnant.
- smallerize 2mo agoThe only penalty here is being banned for a ToS violation. Maybe they could sue for fraud or something? That doesn't change who owns the data.
- j45 2mo agoThe other comments here about this policy being done at scale, or by competitors being different seems to be plausible
- yencabulator 2mo agoOkay so if I own my output I can sell it to my neighbor who then trains on the output?
- SR2Z 2mo agoPresumably the agreement is worded in a way that prohibits that, but considering that lots of model outputs go on the internet just to get trained on anyways Anthropic/OpenAI can fuck right off. I don't see them as having a leg to stand on with this in court; they can only cut off your access for egregious violations.
- grumbelbart2 2mo agoIt might depend on your jurisdiction, but LLM output is usually not copyrightable because it is not made by a human. There might be a few exceptions, if you guided the LLM in very specific and particular ways. But in general, the output of an LLM is public domain the moment it was produced. Can you never tell anybody and just slap a license on it? Sure. The issue here is not the license, but that you violate their ToS (if that is valid and enforceable is a different question of course). But if you publish the LLM output on github, and someone else takes it to train their LLM, and you did not actively encourage or help them, it's fine.
- Steltek 2mo ago> It might depend on your jurisdiction, but LLM output is usually not copyrightable because it is not made by a human. Compiler output isn't copyrightable? Is a compiler human?
- grumbelbart2 2mo agoCompiler output is a derivated work of the source code and thus keeps the copyright of the code.
- ksk23 2mo agoPublic domain is not an international concept. We do not have it in Europe (afaik. We do not have it Germany)
- grumbelbart2 2mo agoOf course it exists in Germany. If I say ‚Hello‘, I could not claim copyright on that sentence because it does not have the required schöpferische Höhe (threshold of originality). The sentence is simply not copyrightable, putting it into public domain. Note that this is different from Gemeinfreiheit, where a copyrighted work essentially becomes public domain 70 years after the death of its creator.
- em-bee 2mo agoMIT doesn't bar additional restrictions, so you could say this is MIT except you can't train on it. GPL on the other hand does not allow additional restrictions and therefore the code would not be compatible. but you can't copyright the output anyways. which either makes the restriction on training void or, it means the owners of the model own the copyright, and they only transfer some of the ownership to you. is there such an ownership transfer statement? i haven't seen one yet.
- yencabulator 2mo ago"MIT doesn't bar additional restrictions" is a bit weird of a statement when the MIT license itself already gave permission to do almost anything with the code. My emphasis. > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software *without restriction*, [...]