Now we are facing an unprecedented growth of AI as a whole. Do you think is time for FSF elaborate a new version of GPL to incorporate the new challenges of AI in software development to keep protecting users freedom?

  • smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Richard Stallman talked about this topic there: https://framatube.org/w/1DbsMfwygx7rTjdBR4DPXp

    Can’t find timestamp tho.

    GPLv3 already takes all of that. Programs that train AI have normal licencing applied. Programs that was modified by AI must be under GPL too. The neural network itself if not a program, it’s a format and is always modifiable anyway as there is no source code. You can take any neural network and train it futher without data it was trained on before.

  • wave_walnut@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem of recent AI is about fair use of data, not about copyright. To solve the AI problem, we need laws to stop abuse of data rather than to stop copying of code.

  • jarfil@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Too soon. The GPL is a license aligning prevalent copyright laws to some ideological goals. There are no prevalent copyright laws regarding AI yet, so there is nothing to base a copyright license on.

    First step: introduce AI into copyright law (and pray The Mouse doesn’t introduce it first).

  • John Colagioia@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I keep saying “no” to this sort of thing, for a variety of reasons.

    1. “You can use this code for anything you want as long as you don’t work in a field that I don’t like” is pretty much the opposite of the spirit of the GPL.
    2. The enormous companies slurping up all content available on the Internet do not care about copyright. The GPL already forbids adapting and redistributing code without licensing under the GPL, and they’re not doing that. So another clause that says “hey, if you’re training an AI, leave me out” is wasted text that nobody is going to read.
    3. Making “AI” an issue instead of “big corporate abuse” means that academics and hobbyists can’t legally train a language model on your code, even if they would otherwise comply with the license.
    4. The FSF has never cared about anything unless Stallman personally cared about it on his personal computer, and they’ve recently proven that he matters to them more than the community, so we probably shouldn’t ever expect a new GPL.
    5. The GPL has so many problems (because it’s been based on one person’s personal focuses) that they don’t care about or isolate in random silos (like the AGPL, as if the web is still a fringe thing) that AI barely seems relevant.

    I mean, I get it. The language-model people are exhausting, and their disinterest in copyright law is unpleasant. But asking an organization that doesn’t care to add restrictions to a license that the companies don’t read isn’t going to solve the problem.

    • jarfil@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The GPL is a license made by the FSF, not sure who else could make a new version other than them. Other entities make their own licenses, which might or not be compatible with the GPL.

      • Lionir [he/him]@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The FSF is a non-working organization which refuses to let go of its horrible founder. I hoped it would move on, it didn’t and refused to despite massive amounts of community backlash. I no longer believe they should have any role in representing the Free Software movement.

        • Chemical Wonka@discuss.tchncs.deOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I really like Stallman, the man that made me think about the importance of free software. In my opinion he is essential for free software movement even with some “controversial” ideas. I like the way he defends his ideas, is something rare nowadays.

          • Lionir [he/him]@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I mean, I think his ideas on free software are good generally but his behaviour and opinions on other topics are pretty fucking terrible. I don’t understand why people want to defend that part. The FSF can function without him and defend the ideas of Free Software.

            • Chemical Wonka@discuss.tchncs.deOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              Indeed, his ideas are often very controversial, he is a old man with old habits and I think he has some deficiency in the way he communicates with people that are contrary to his ideas and this fact makes everything even worse. I don’t know what will be with FSF after him for good and bad.