[brookst]

While I think OP is shortsighted in their desire for an “open source only for permitted use cases” license, it is entirely possible that training will be found to not be fair use, and/or that making and retaining copies for training purposes is not fair use.

Perhaps you can’t dissuade AI companies today, but it is possible that the courts will do so in the future.

But honestly it’s hard for me to care. I do not think the world would be better if “open source except for militaries” or “open source except for people who eat meat” license became commonplace.

[gus_massa]

The problem are "viral" licences. Must the code generated by an AI trained with GPL code be released with a GPL licence?

Also, can an AI be trained with the leaked source of Windows(R)(C)(TM)?

[spwa4]

> Also, can an AI be trained with the leaked source of Windows(R)(C)(TM)?

I think you mean to ask the question "what are the consequences of such extreme and gross violations of copyright?"

Because they've already done it. The question is now only ... what is the punishment, if any? The GPL requires that all materials used to produce a derivative work that is published, made available, performed, etc. is made available at cost.

Does anyone who has a patch in the Linux kernel and can get ChatGPT to reproduce their patch (ie. every linux kernel contributor) get access to all of OpenAIs training materials? Ditto for Anthropic, Alphabet, ...

As people keep pointing out when defending copyright here: these AI training companies consciously chose to include that data, at the cost of respecting the "contract" that is the license.

And if they don't have to respect licenses, then if I run old Disney movies through a matrix and publish the results (let's say the identity matrix)? How about 3 matrices with some nonlinearities? Where is the limit?

Since copyright law cannot be retroactively changed, any update congress makes to copyright wouldn't affect the outcome for at least a year ...

[testdelacc1]

Open source except for people who have downvoted any of my comments.

I agree with you though. I get sad when I see people abuse the Commons that everyone contributes to, and I understand that some people want to stop contributing to the Commons when they see that. I just disagree - we benefit more from a flourishing Commons, even if there are free loaders, even if there are exploiters etc.