We now note that that we do not waive our attribution requirements for Spritely Goblins, which are present in Apache v2 (and for that matter, CC BY, CC BY-SA, and most FOSS licenses) https://codeberg.org/spritely/goblins/pulls/998/files
-
Btw I have heard at least one prominent FOSS person (I'm choosing to not fill their notifications here by identifying them) that nobody cares about attribution requirements (and particularly not enforcing them). But to me, attribution is what I care about MORE than any other licensing requirements, more than copyleft "share-alike" style provisions, etc.
If you feel similarly, it would be good to hear on this thread. Perhaps even copying a similar notice into your project is a good idea.
@cwebber @LunaDragofelis it annoys me that ppl would consider a lack of enforcement to be a lack of interest;
i dont want to enforce them because the normal means to do so is via state violence and i might like attribution but im not about to hurt someone over it.
i would however say, leave an issue or message the guy or things like that, about not attributing, generally tell everyone "hey they didnt make that" which ideally? would get out everywhere and no one would really beleive then saying "i made this"
from a certain perspective i dont subscribe too; this could be considered a kind of "enforcement" i suppose,
tbh alot of instances of it are also a mistake somewhat, like not clicking fork or whatever so then it just doesnt include where it came from ..
anyway its not a copyright thing; its just basic courtesy really -- like pirates usually dont even claim they made the thing.
-
@cwebber What if the attribution is then done to every piece of training data? That's not impossible if the training data is known, but will it be acceptable?
.. no the collection of training data is a problem because of the massive amount of strain it places on infrastructure set for the commons that makes it impossible for anyone else to access, and becuase its appropriating the commons then selling it back to you,
which still has nothing to do w copyright.
-
@cwebber i'm an artist/academic/educator and i consider making foss to be a part of my practice. any kind of attribution helps me to make the case that my work has "impact" which in turn helps me to keep my job. a lot of foss projects that are related to academia in some way will request that papers resulting from research that makes use of the project include an actual bibliographical citation—i assume for similar reasons. tbh i think this prominent foss person is full of it
-
.. no the collection of training data is a problem because of the massive amount of strain it places on infrastructure set for the commons that makes it impossible for anyone else to access, and becuase its appropriating the commons then selling it back to you,
which still has nothing to do w copyright.
@Li @cwebber Not all the training data is putting strain. There are training datasets that were crawled respecting robots.txt.
I am most interested in the scenario when there is a training dataset (crawled once without hitting servers repeatedly), and used for open weight model.
Open data+weight still does not address attribution. That's why my question.
-
@cwebber @LunaDragofelis it annoys me that ppl would consider a lack of enforcement to be a lack of interest;
i dont want to enforce them because the normal means to do so is via state violence and i might like attribution but im not about to hurt someone over it.
i would however say, leave an issue or message the guy or things like that, about not attributing, generally tell everyone "hey they didnt make that" which ideally? would get out everywhere and no one would really beleive then saying "i made this"
from a certain perspective i dont subscribe too; this could be considered a kind of "enforcement" i suppose,
tbh alot of instances of it are also a mistake somewhat, like not clicking fork or whatever so then it just doesnt include where it came from ..
anyway its not a copyright thing; its just basic courtesy really -- like pirates usually dont even claim they made the thing.
@Li @cwebber @LunaDragofelis the contrast to piracy is apt. I've seen anti-AI libs compare LLMs to piracy, and I've seen AI shills go "well, if you support piracy, how can you hate AI?" But one of the big differences is attribution. I don't mind people ""stealing"" my work to consume it. Art is made to be shared. I *do* mind people pretending they--or a statistical averages machine--made something that I poured my heart and labor into. Attribution matters, IP laws are still capitalist bullshit
-
-
@Li @cwebber @LunaDragofelis the contrast to piracy is apt. I've seen anti-AI libs compare LLMs to piracy, and I've seen AI shills go "well, if you support piracy, how can you hate AI?" But one of the big differences is attribution. I don't mind people ""stealing"" my work to consume it. Art is made to be shared. I *do* mind people pretending they--or a statistical averages machine--made something that I poured my heart and labor into. Attribution matters, IP laws are still capitalist bullshit
@raphaelmorgan @cwebber @LunaDragofelis another part of this is that it treats a corporation doing something the same as a individual doing it, which has different dynamics at play; but your not allowed to point it out
alot mention an idea of it being for-profit, but thats not really the whole of the issue there and i think not a very good look at things.
another issue is that AI is not piracy its taking the thing and trying to make some product their trying to sell .. piracy is just the thing distributed by someone else .. whos not approved
.. and maybe modded to bypass DRM. but to be honest i tend to avoid; copyright related reasons for saying AI bad for this reason; its not like thats all you have, its also used for mass survailence, the military are training it to murder people, its good at generating propaganda, it encourages reliance on it giving whoever made it lots of power and; also generally training is very intensive on infrastructure, but yeah.
-
-
-
-
-
-
@raphaelmorgan @cwebber @LunaDragofelis another part of this is that it treats a corporation doing something the same as a individual doing it, which has different dynamics at play; but your not allowed to point it out
alot mention an idea of it being for-profit, but thats not really the whole of the issue there and i think not a very good look at things.
another issue is that AI is not piracy its taking the thing and trying to make some product their trying to sell .. piracy is just the thing distributed by someone else .. whos not approved
.. and maybe modded to bypass DRM. but to be honest i tend to avoid; copyright related reasons for saying AI bad for this reason; its not like thats all you have, its also used for mass survailence, the military are training it to murder people, its good at generating propaganda, it encourages reliance on it giving whoever made it lots of power and; also generally training is very intensive on infrastructure, but yeah.
@Li @cwebber @LunaDragofelis I think the for-profit point is definitely part of it (for me) but not nearly as much as some say. Like, I would still be upset if an individual took my work, modified it a bit (if only to remove my signature or what have you), and claimed they made it. But I wouldn't feel nearly as powerless or angry as when a corporation does it.
And yeah, talking about non-copyright-based reasons is very important, because copyright is yet another capitalist system oppressing us
-
@Li @cwebber I did not imply that solving attribution automatically resolves every other issue. I am asking about specific thing - AI not propertly attributing its sources used for the output. That's a concrete problem. I asked if attributing to *all* sources is good.engough to solve this particular problem.
-
@Li @cwebber I conclude from your answer that referring to all sources, even not really used in the specific output is practically solving attribution (at least, from your perspective). I'd like to point out that may or may not be enough for other people who are looking for their work to be attributed.
So, no, I did not say "consider one issue, then solve that issue". What I proposed may or may not be a solution.
-
@Li @cwebber Let's me give you exaggregated example - what if every slop code starts to attribute *every possible website on the internet*. Or even non-slop code using a code licensed with attribution does not attribute just to that code, but also to 1000 other codes (that have very little to do with this non-slop code). That feels not exactly right, although might technically fulfill the license. But maybe that's just me.
-
@Li @cwebber That's what I thought rightaway after I came up with this idea with overattribution. Obvious for me, and I wanted to see if it is the same for others. (It is not).
For the attribution context, one can always invent new word for it (like "statistically inspired" of whatever).
The bigger issue is for authors who may not even care about open source, but just want attribution to see usefulness of their work. Over-attribution is an insult for them.
-
@bkuhn @joeyh @cwebber @trashheap
The web server was not written in one go as a whole.
It was put together patch by patch
It was therefore A Patchy Server.Being conscious of assorted things does not entirely rule out occasional flashes of humour, accretions of language, and mnemonic conveniences.
I hope.
What you describe about “A-patchy” is a post-hoc constructed backstory that an unnamed third party came up with, but ultimately was used by the org to build a *false* backstory.
& I (re-)found the receipts on this recently: https://web.archive.org/web/20070501205953/http://www.linux-mag.com/id/472
>“When I thought of the name [Apache] … [I thought it] connoted: ‘Take no prisoners. Be kind of aggressive and kick some ass.‘”
— Brian Behlendorf, founder of Apache [sic] Software FoundationCc: @joeyh @cwebber @trashheap
-
What you describe about “A-patchy” is a post-hoc constructed backstory that an unnamed third party came up with, but ultimately was used by the org to build a *false* backstory.
& I (re-)found the receipts on this recently: https://web.archive.org/web/20070501205953/http://www.linux-mag.com/id/472
>“When I thought of the name [Apache] … [I thought it] connoted: ‘Take no prisoners. Be kind of aggressive and kick some ass.‘”
— Brian Behlendorf, founder of Apache [sic] Software FoundationCc: @joeyh @cwebber @trashheap
@bkuhn @joeyh @cwebber @trashheap
RetConned. Ah well.
A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet. -
@bkuhn @copiesofcopies Of course the legislative environment has *always* been tailored to proprietary software. Without copyright (and related intellectual restrictions laws), we wouldn't have proprietary software!
What I mean is that Microsoft stepped in and set the tone with assumptions of "oh well it's okay to step all over and ignore the terms of the commons when we ingest them into the model, we would be upset if this happened to our stuff though"... for Microsoft, semi theoretical, but Disney and the record industries have actually done this: they're using AI for some projects, but also suing that their copyrights have been violated.
Copyright for me but not for thee type stuff.
(Which I know we agree about as a concern in this landscape.)
Well, here's the thing on this, and precisely why I hate the bull
“copyleft is *only* a license, never a contract” rhetoric that exists in some circles:Most of Microsoft's proprietary licenses aren't rooted in trade secret, or trademark, or copyright, or patents. They are rooted in a *contractual agreement* that you make via a web-click or shrink-wrap opening.
Fortunately, the rhetoric is wrong and copyleft licenses are contracts, AFAIK.
IANAL and TINLA.
Cc: @copiesofcopies
