new licenses aren't going to solve the problem

[Dirk Hohndel]

Bradley,

Thanks for those notes. I'm trying to follow your instructions regarding responses...

> On Sep 26, 2022, at 10:33 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn at sfconservancy.org> wrote:
> 
> Should Copyleft Licenses Address APAS Directly?
> ===============================================
> 
> But, should we recommend that copyleft licenses in future speak to the
> issue?  Should they create the so-called “field of use” restriction that if
> the model is used to create.  In other words, is copyright minimalism a
> central approach of copyleft.  Would the OSI call it a “field of use”
> restriction if a copyleft license restricted creation of proprietary
> software through the AI system?

Doesn't this approach lead to the outcome that 40+ years of free and open
source software that uses existing licenses is already accepted as being
open for ingestion into models?

In other words, if we focus on creating NEW licenses that try to prevent
the code in question to be reused in AI models, wouldn't that create the
clear impression that we are in agreement that none of the existing licenses
protect from that?

I had really hoped that at least for the reciprocal licenses good arguments
could be made that this isn't as straight forward as some seem to think.

And that also some of the protections that one could get from licenses
(for example against patent claims) would be lost in such cases?

Or am I simply aiming my thinking in the wrong direction?

> Other Approaches To Calling APAS trained on FOSS Into Question
> ==============================================================
> 
> Should we approach this as an arms race, where we continue to show places
> where these APAS's produce infringing works, and the APAS creators keep
> modifying their systems (as GitHub already has been doing) to blacklist
> production of that particular output.
> 
> Ultimately, if we don't see these systems regularly producing infringing
> works, then our complaints become less valid.

Yes, that is similar to my concern - but kind of taking the opposite position. By
getting them to specifically challenge code and remove it, we can make it harder
to object - just like I think that by creating new licenses we can make it harder to
object.

/D

PS: I tried to massively cut this email down and may have inadvertently removed
important passages - this was done to prevent flooding / drowning the recipients,
not in an effort to hide points that were already made.