bugfix-66

10 ms·

91.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
Take another look. We removed the "Open Source" wording in response to your comments. And it was never intended to be a Free/Copyleft license: this is a permissive MIT- or BSD-style license. The No-AI 3-Clause License explici
92.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
See discussion of an earlier draft here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33458374 We've removed "Open Source" from the name because the license may be incompatible with point 6 of the OSI definition here
93.
Show HN: The No-AI 3-Clause License (explicitly prohibits, e.g., GitHub Copilot)(bugfix-66.com)
2 points by bugfix-66 4y ago|7 comments
94.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
It's certainly less ambiguous. The BSD license restricts both "redistribution" and "use": Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the follow
95.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
I see, it's clause 6 in the OSI definition: 6. No discrimination against fields of endeavor: The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the
96.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
Please elaborate on this surprising claim, in detail. Here is the OSI definition of Open Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition
97.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
It's the BSD 2-clause license, a very old, very widely-used, and very respectable open source license: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses We've added one additional clause EXPLICITLY PROHIBITING use
98.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
We're consulting the lawyers here: https://www.saverilawfirm.com/our-cases/github-copilot-intel... I'll let you know what they say.
99.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
You can't take a person's name off their work and sell it. People who work hard to produce open source software expect credit and acknowledgement for their work. That's why almost every license has an attribution clause. If y
100.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
It boggles the mind. I was also in disbelief when I saw this post.
101.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
Perhaps it could be argued that Copilot was an unexpected development, and the users of GitHub could not possibly have intended to donate all their work to be used anonymously and without attribution? It's a bit like how non-compete cl
102.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
I think it's you who are in the "vocal minority". Microsoft Copilot is an abuse of open source. It is perhaps the greatest theft of intellectual property in human history. We should do everything we can to defeat it. That sai
103.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
I use MIT- and BSD-licensed code at work in a closed-source commercial system. The documentation for our system acknowledges our use of the open-source code, and I'm sure the authors are proud to be part of our codebase (with attributi
104.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
Well, what are our options? What else can we do to protect ourselves from Microsoft Copilot?
105.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
Unfortunately, I cannot find support for my claim that Microsoft excludes GPL-licensed code.
106.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
Law-abiding companies like Microsoft won't knowingly violate a license. My understanding is that Microsoft makes an effort to exclude all GPL software from its training. (Is this true?) What we need is a more permissive MIT- or BSD-sty
107.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
The BSD license also controls "use", not just "redistribution": Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: Th
108.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
We need a more permissive MIT- or BSD-style license. The GPL is good for some purposes, but too restrictive for others.
109.
Ask HN: License to prohibit training of systems like Microsoft Copilot
39 points by bugfix-66 4y ago|42 comments
110.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
The license conditionally permits (i.e., controls) "redistribution and use in source and binary forms". I think we can constrain use with the third clause. My question is, how should we word that clause?
111.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
If the GPL can defeat Copilot, we need an more permissive MIT/BSD-style license to do the same.
112.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
It's literally the standard BSD 2-Clause License, word for word, with an additional third clause: 3. Use in source or binary forms for the construction or operation of predictive software generation systems is prohibited. H
113.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
Ask HN: I want to modify the BSD 2-Clause Open Source License to explicitly prohibit the use of the licensed software in training systems like Microsoft's Copilot (and use during inference). How should the third clause be worded? T
114.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
And the decoder: https://bugfix-66.com/1efa93a5eb0cc12b3de7cd1dab8e471a2cc95e... This is a generalization (and improvement on!) the typical "high-bit" varint encoding, which is simply an specialization with base 1
115.
Flexible Varint/VLQ: Variable-length bytewise integer encodings in Go(bugfix-66.com)
3 points by bugfix-66 4y ago|1 comments
116.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
The successor to C must be designed for a world where it's typical for an application to use dozens of CPU cores. This is the main reason we need a successor to C. Garbage collection becomes almost a necessity when you have enormous co
117.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
The successor to C is Go. Go inherits from Oberon through Robert Griesemer, and from C through Ken Thompson (father of Unix) and Rob Pike (Bell Labs). I don't bother with C anymore, except in small parts of code where every cycle count
118.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
Where are you going to get the training data, once copyright law is amended to protect artists from this new kind of intellectual property theft? Without enormous training data from human victims, your "Artificial Intelligence" do
119.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
The companies that pay artists' salaries won't be willing to secretly break the law to save money. Microsoft won't legally be able to continue its abuse of GitHub. Copilot will be dead. OpenAI and Stability will not legally b
120.
by bugfix-66 4y ago
There's nothing inevitable about it. Laws exist to protect people. It's a bit like saying we can't stop music piracy, now that Napster exists. Remember the naive rallying cry among those who thought everyone should have the r

More ›