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
-
@cwebber that's very interesting!
I'm not sure your licenses apply to training LLMs; it's not clear to me that copyright governs the training process.
I know you think differently; that a license attaches like a spell to the bits and bytes, no matter how small the excerpt or how varied the rearrangement.
The mechanism is not the issue. I think the expression of author intent is really important!
For Web resources, we have the AI preferences from IETF:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-aipref-attach-05
But, of course, Free Software doesn't just come from one website. It's made to be spread around. It would be good to have some sort of AI prefs expressed in the package itself, no matter where it is.
-
The mechanism is not the issue. I think the expression of author intent is really important!
For Web resources, we have the AI preferences from IETF:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-aipref-attach-05
But, of course, Free Software doesn't just come from one website. It's made to be spread around. It would be good to have some sort of AI prefs expressed in the package itself, no matter where it is.
@cwebber it is for these reasons we need something better than open source. An ethical open license.
-
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 privacy is more important than attribution. https://penfount.social/@PenThoughts/117444874669122085
Also, copyleft and fair use and humans sharing with other humans in a non commercial collaborative way with and without attribution should always be protected. Not for profit, not deleting attribution and taking credit for others work, but libraries and mix tapes and punk style bricolage, and sharing ideas. -
@bkuhn @trashheap I appreciate the clarification on your position here.
I still do hold the positions that attribution are the glue that hold the commons together, and it's important that we fight to preserve it, and not give the impression that it is being voluntarily waived in the face of LLMs.
-
I like the idea behind CC Signals but it needs to ship a prototype soon.
-
@bkuhn @trashheap I appreciate the clarification on your position here.
I still do hold the positions that attribution are the glue that hold the commons together, and it's important that we fight to preserve it, and not give the impression that it is being voluntarily waived in the face of LLMs.
@cwebber @bkuhn @trashheap@tech.lgbt If bkuhn's right that permissive licenses make attribution hard to enforce, then the best way to accomplish that would be to use copyleft.
Anyway, if you keep Apache v2, it would certainly make sense to include a NOTICE file, since currently an Object derived from goblins does not need to attribute you at all. And as Apache v2 defines "Object", that seems to include AI models.
-
@cwebber @bkuhn @trashheap@tech.lgbt If bkuhn's right that permissive licenses make attribution hard to enforce, then the best way to accomplish that would be to use copyleft.
Anyway, if you keep Apache v2, it would certainly make sense to include a NOTICE file, since currently an Object derived from goblins does not need to attribute you at all. And as Apache v2 defines "Object", that seems to include AI models.
-
-
-
@bkuhn @trashheap I appreciate the clarification on your position here.
I still do hold the positions that attribution are the glue that hold the commons together, and it's important that we fight to preserve it, and not give the impression that it is being voluntarily waived in the face of LLMs.
@cwebber @bkuhn @trashheap IMO the real challenge to FOSS enforcement against LLM producers is the same one everyone else has: if the training is fair use because the resulting model is transformative, the producer doesn’t need a license (and doesn’t have to respect the terms of any existing license). It’s still early early days in terms of court decisions, but this looks like the direction we’re headed in the US (though the outcome will likely vary depending on how much memorization a model can be shown to do).
-
@cwebber @bkuhn @trashheap IMO the real challenge to FOSS enforcement against LLM producers is the same one everyone else has: if the training is fair use because the resulting model is transformative, the producer doesn’t need a license (and doesn’t have to respect the terms of any existing license). It’s still early early days in terms of court decisions, but this looks like the direction we’re headed in the US (though the outcome will likely vary depending on how much memorization a model can be shown to do).
@copiesofcopies @bkuhn @trashheap My main concern is that the resulting legislative environment is as equitable for FOSS as it is for the proprietary world, whatever the outcome is. In many ways this is why I'm happy to see the vibe-laundered versions of Adobe's suite etc, I think that will push the issue.
-
@copiesofcopies @bkuhn @trashheap My main concern is that the resulting legislative environment is as equitable for FOSS as it is for the proprietary world, whatever the outcome is. In many ways this is why I'm happy to see the vibe-laundered versions of Adobe's suite etc, I think that will push the issue.
@cwebber @bkuhn @trashheap unfortunately, we’re falling behind quickly, just in terms of the regulatory impact on who can afford to build competitive models. The CLAIM Act (just introduced) is basically designed to compel anyone who trains a model to either: (1) make it impossible for that model to accidentally cause harm, or (2) buy expensive insurance to cover the damage from inevitable harm.
-
@cwebber @bkuhn If I compile goblins and give the object file to someone, without attributing you -- as Apache v2 seems to allow sans NOTICE* -- and that person decompiles it, we've generated source code that is derived from goblins but does not attribute you. Seemingly legally.
Wouldn't the same apply to generating an LLM and using it no matter what you might ask in your README?
* ignoring moral rights
-
@cwebber @bkuhn @trashheap unfortunately, we’re falling behind quickly, just in terms of the regulatory impact on who can afford to build competitive models. The CLAIM Act (just introduced) is basically designed to compel anyone who trains a model to either: (1) make it impossible for that model to accidentally cause harm, or (2) buy expensive insurance to cover the damage from inevitable harm.
@cwebber @bkuhn @trashheap on the reverse-engineering side, we’ll see. Some interface and look & feel stuff is likely to be protected by copyright, and “clean room” efforts are probably misguided, because there’s no proving someone else’s model wasn’t trained on the target application.
-
-
@cwebber @bkuhn If I compile goblins and give the object file to someone, without attributing you -- as Apache v2 seems to allow sans NOTICE* -- and that person decompiles it, we've generated source code that is derived from goblins but does not attribute you. Seemingly legally.
Wouldn't the same apply to generating an LLM and using it no matter what you might ask in your README?
* ignoring moral rights
@joeyh @cwebber @bkuhn I find myself pondering what a (practical) "attribution-maximalist" license might look like. As I mentioned elsethread, for my fonts, I have a copyright notice that permits basically any use or modification, as long as 1. you not misrepresent the origin of the original (you don't get to claim you made my stuff), 2. you not misrepresent the origin of your modifications (you don't get to claim I made your stuff).
But there are some other considerations for non-font software, obviously. And I no longer share or distribute any other creative works than fonts (and those, I only send to friends).
-
@xinniw @cwebber I've drawn this comparison before, and I'm sure I will again, but the very first Easter Eggs in video games were... credits.
Why were they credits? Because Atari didn't want to include credit to the people who made the game. And you can't tell that story without it being intuitively obvious that Atari were being indefensible assholes. And now every video game has credits in it - most people won't pay too much attention to the contents, but the record is still important to the people who actually worked to make the thing, and to the people who love those people. The sky didn't fall from credits existing. The world got a little better actually.
But the capitalist incentive to alienate people from their labor, and consumers from the humanity of the people making their stuff, has never *stopped.* LLMs are just the next chapter of the story, the throughline of indefensible assholes that want to model labor as anonymous and interchangeable cogs, especially erasing minorities from history.
the capitalist incentive to alienate people from their labor, and consumers from the humanity of the people making their stuff
That seems like a collectivist incentive to me. The individual is merely a cog in the wheel of the collective.
Maybe it is just that assholes are assholes regardless of the economic structure they inhabit. -
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 The ASF absolutely cares about the attribution requirements of ALv2. I am not involved with the ASF Legal team, but I am confident that they would be eager to enforce the attribution requirements against a clear intentional violation. I know that they have sent Stern Letters on such issues and as far as I can tell, those always work.
-
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 "i just don't want someone to take my name off my code" is absolutely something i've said to people before.
-
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 right; I still remember how proud I was when I first read a "Thanks to /me" in a changelog or bug report or something. and I try to follow this path myself.
(I do care about licenses but that's a different topic.)
