(4/5)…non-copyleft licenses *always* permit redistribution of #FOSS under terms that include revocable license. So, SB-942 (“CA AI Transparency Act”) is compatible out of the gate w/ LLM-gen-AI systems licensed (from the up-top to the down-deep) under, say, MIT license.

#Copyleft has minor complications — as they permit revocation ONLY upon violation of its own clauses. This is no problem if the copyleft clauses already (or are modified to) account for the policies that California pursues here…

(2/5)… I'm still studying SB-942 “CA #AI Transparency Act”. My quick take: This is not actually a problem for #FOSS *at all*.

AND, in fact, #GitHub & #Mozilla's position is designed to trick FOSS activists into *thinking* it's a problem for #OpenSource to assist #Microsoft to achieve their own political aims. I'm working on an essay wit more detail. TL;DR:

*Maybe* we have to update copyleft terms to account for these requirements *if* we ever want to license an #LLM-gen-AI as #copyleft, but …

¹Few remember that the #Linux-based distribution *itself* was initially called Red Hat, then Red Hat Linux, until circa 2002 when Red Hat Advanced Server (later RHEL) & #Fedora split.

I'm a critic of the murky #RHEL business model <https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2023/jun/23/rhel-gpl-analysis/> — especially now #IBM's in charge — #RedHat did learned early, well, & correctly that naming the #copyleft-based product & the company the same leads only to acrimony & confusion. So many companies exploit that confusion & harm users.

@jenniferplusplus

Note #GitHub's position is “technically correct”, which companies & attorneys who make 💰 exploiting #FOSS find “the best kind of correct”.

The big problem is for non-copyleft licenses b/c they pursue mostly the policy goal of “require attribution” & little else.¹

I'll study the statue to see how to reconcile it w/ existing #copyleft, but it's compatible w/ copyleft *in principle*.
Why we want to maintain the libertarian wing of FOSS eludes me (but for, y'know, capitalism).

@pchestek

😬 We can trust companies that exploit #FOSS & violate copyleft for a living to “fix” laws about #OpenSource!?!? 🤮

While the revocation provisions are slightly problematic, they could be easily made congruent with #copyleft. But, obviously that's not the goal here: the goal here is to make it more difficult for users to get what they need to figure out what's going on with their software.

#GitHub #Microsoft #OSI

@ArneBab
Great question;it's dicey.
My interpretation as a policy matter is that if you clearly state prominently where the licensing of the work differs from #YouTube's terms, *and* you go to efforts to also make the work available better-licensing-marked elsewhere, that the chance of a real problem are minimal.

This issue definitely needs an essay for posterity b/c it's gonna come up again.
I have to queue that for after Vizio trial, but it's in the queue.

IANAL & TINLA.

#GPL #copyleft

@ArneBab

Indeed, this has been a huge problem for years. I attempted to talk to YouTube about it when they were small. Unfortunately they were lobbied by others to give *ONLY ONE* non-proprietary license, and to make it a non- #copyleft one.

It's a disaster for Free Culture, as you say. I wish I had a better idea how to solve it, but now I recommend just telling YouTube it's proprietary and put the correct license in the description like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tVKItTtL3w
Not ideal, but workable.