> this stance allows me to do whatever do I want with any software
Actually, no it doesn't. This topic is about AI training on code.
Courts have not held that this is illegal.
But there are absolutely other things, that people might do with code, that break copyright law.
> it's your problem, not mine.
Oh, but it would be your problem as well, if you break the law, and someone else sues you for it.
That's the difference. AI training is not against the law. Other things, that you are imagining in your head right now, very well could be, and you could lose.
> Same will be very valid for your works
Not if what you are hypothetically doing breaks the law, and AI training doesn't break the law.
So that the difference, which makes the reasoning legitimate.
Laws are just codified version of ethics. Just because it's not codified in law, it doesn't mean it's ethically correct, and I hold ethics over laws. Some people call this conscience, others call this honor.
Just because it's not deemed illegal, it's not deemed ethical. These are different things. The world has worked under honor and ethical codes for a very long time, and still works under these unwritten laws in a lot of areas.
Science, software and other frontiers value ethics and principles a great deal. Some niches like AI largely ignore these, and I find this disturbing.
However, some people prefer to play the game with the written rules only, and as I said, I'm investing in popcorn futures to see what's gonna happen to them.
I might tank and go bankrupt of course, but I will sleep better at night for sure, and this is more important for me at the end.
I'm passionate about computers, yes. This is also my job, yes, but I'm not the person who'll do reckless things just because an incomplete code of written ethics doesn't prevent me to do it.
I'd rather not do anything to anyone which I don't want to receive. IOW, I sow only the seeds which I want to reap.
And a quite reasonable code of ethics is thst people do not have absolute, complete control over their intellectual property, and instead only have the ability to control it in certain circumstances.
Things like fair use, which makes this legal, exists for many very good reasons.
So yes, the code of ethics that society has decided on, includes perfectly reasonable exception, such as fair use, and it is your problem, not ours, that you have some ridiculous idea that people should have complete, 100% authoritarian control over their IP.
And no, people not having infinite control over IP, does not allow you to extend this reasonable exception, to you being able to do literally anything to other people's IP.
You're completely right. My premise is not extending the (court tested, honored) license I attach to my code.
What I say with the GPL license is clear:
If you derive anything from this code base, you're agreeing and obliged to carry this license to the target code base (The logical unit in this case is a function in most cases).
So the case is clear. AI is a derivation engine. What you obtain is a derivation of my GPL licensed code. Carry the license, or don't use that snippet, or in AI's case, do not emit GPL derived code for non-GPL code bases.
This is all within the accepted ethics & law. Moreover, it's court tested too.
They are not agreeing, because there is a perfectly reasonable ethical and legal principle called fair use, which society has determined allows people to engage in limited use of other people's IP, no matter what the license says.
> Carry the license, or don't use
Or, instead of that, people could reasonably use fair use, and ignore the license, as fair use exists for many good legal and ethical reasons.
And no, you do not get to extend that out, to doing anything you want to do, just because there is a reasonable exception called fair use.
> do not emit GPL derived code for non-GPL code bases
Or, actually, yes do this. This is allowed because of the reasonable ethical and moral principle called fair use, which allows people to ignore your license.
I will agree to disagree on your overly broad definition of fair-use which consists of ingesting a whole code base and using its significant parts for another code base with or without derivation while disregarding the attached license to its whole and/or parts.
Thanks for the discussion, and have a nice day.
I may not further comment on this thread from this point.
Actually, no it doesn't. This topic is about AI training on code.
Courts have not held that this is illegal.
But there are absolutely other things, that people might do with code, that break copyright law.
> it's your problem, not mine.
Oh, but it would be your problem as well, if you break the law, and someone else sues you for it.
That's the difference. AI training is not against the law. Other things, that you are imagining in your head right now, very well could be, and you could lose.
> Same will be very valid for your works
Not if what you are hypothetically doing breaks the law, and AI training doesn't break the law.
So that the difference, which makes the reasoning legitimate.
reply