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?

  • Ashley
    8·
    1 year ago

    It might be time to start thinking about it, however it will depend on the consensus among the legal system on weather you need to provide attribution through AI.

    • lemmyvore@feddit.nlEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      There is already consensus, it just hasn’t been concluded explicitly yet.

      There is no “AI” and there’s no “learning”, so there’s no new unbeaten path in law. like some would make you believe. LLMs are data processing software that take input data and output other data. In order to use the input data you have to conform to its licensing, and you can’t hide behind arguments like “I don’t know what the software is doing with the data” or “I can’t identify the input data in the output data anymore”.

      LLM companies will eventually be found guilty of copyright infringement and they’ll settle and start observing licensing terms like everybody else. There are plenty of media companies with lots of money with a vested interest in copyright.

      • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        8·
        1 year ago

        That’s not how copyrights work. They only care about copying or replicating that data. The hint is in the name

        • lemmyvore@feddit.nlEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          Copyright is not just about copying the data. It’s a name that stuck but it’s more accurately to call it “author rights”. The law awards the rights holder extensive rights, including deciding how the data is used.

          And (as an aside) permission by omission doesn’t work as an excuse either, if the right to use the data in some way hasn’t been explicitly granted it most likely doesn’t apply.

          • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            3·
            1 year ago

            No that’s not what copyrights are. The idea that they’re “author rights” has no basis in law

            • lemmyvore@feddit.nlEnglish
              2·
              1 year ago

              Why insist to argue this point when a simple visit to Wikipedia will show I’m right?

            • madkarlsson@beehaw.org
              1·
              1 year ago

              You are mistaken and don’t seen to fullt grasp what copyright is.

              A copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive right to copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work, usually for a limited time.[1][2][3][4][5] The creative work may be in a literary, artistic, educational, or musical form.

              Notice what is states besides copying? First paragraph on wikipedia, come on.

        • madkarlsson@beehaw.org
          1·
          1 year ago

          You are mistaken and don’t seen to fullt grasp what copyright is.

          A copyright is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the exclusive right to copy, distribute, adapt, display, and perform a creative work, usually for a limited time.[1][2][3][4][5] The creative work may be in a literary, artistic, educational, or musical form.