Martin Owens 
RE: https://mastodon.social/@sjvn/115532457970095005
These Free Software programmers are too demure, too shy, too generous in their descriptions. Call it what is it:
Labour Abuse
Juank Prada Art@doctormo I’ve always thought that the model is broken in a way. Considering how many companies benefit from Open source libraries and give nothing/not enough back to the community, it makes me think that after all GPL was right in its enforcement of keeping things Free (as in freedom).
At least that way companies would be “forced” to contribute if they make use of such code 🤔
Giacomo TesioStill, #LLM are voiding the #GPL (and #AGPL) reciprocity.
That's why years ago I wrote the #HackingLicense https://encrypted.tesio.it/documents/HACK.txt
It was designed with automated corporate #exploitation of #FreeSoftware in mind: it's goal is to balance #freedom and #communion, and it share with those that accept it much more than permissions, while being a stromger #copyleft and an explicit shrink-wrap contract.
Unfortunately, it's not compatible with GPL, because GPL is much weaker.
The fundamental issue of Free Software, the one that let people create the #OpenSource narrative and permessive licenses to exploit programmer ideals and #freelabor, was that #RMS, as an American grown up during #ColdWar, was too fond of the freedom-vs-communism propaganda to understand how lack of rules means the rule of the rich.
The problem is not commercial use of free software but commercial exploitation of free labour, as @[email protected] correctly stated.
The Hacking License does not prohibit commercial use, but requires recipient to share their own #copyright with the users of any derivative or dependant work they create as a contractual binding.
It's modelled after the research of #ElinorOstrom about Commons governance and the #Hacker ethics based on the value of #curiosity.
That's why years ago I wrote the #HackingLicense https://encrypted.tesio.it/documents/HACK.txt
It was designed with automated corporate #exploitation of #FreeSoftware in mind: it's goal is to balance #freedom and #communion, and it share with those that accept it much more than permissions, while being a stromger #copyleft and an explicit shrink-wrap contract.
Unfortunately, it's not compatible with GPL, because GPL is much weaker.
The fundamental issue of Free Software, the one that let people create the #OpenSource narrative and permessive licenses to exploit programmer ideals and #freelabor, was that #RMS, as an American grown up during #ColdWar, was too fond of the freedom-vs-communism propaganda to understand how lack of rules means the rule of the rich.
The problem is not commercial use of free software but commercial exploitation of free labour, as @[email protected] correctly stated.
The Hacking License does not prohibit commercial use, but requires recipient to share their own #copyright with the users of any derivative or dependant work they create as a contractual binding.
It's modelled after the research of #ElinorOstrom about Commons governance and the #Hacker ethics based on the value of #curiosity.
Alfred M. Szmidt@[email protected]
The way #LLM are voiding classic #copyleft has been experimentally demonstrated years ago, when #GitHub #Copilot was caught distributing well known #AGPLv3 code with a permissive license and wrong author attribution.
Also, technically that incident demonstrated how Copilot's model itself is a derivative work of copylefted works: if a lossy compression of copyrighted material is still subject to authors' #copyright, encoding such compression as arrays of floats that can be executed by virtual processors with a dedicated architecture (so called "inference" engines) does't change its nature of derivative work. Similarly violating copyrights of millions of authors at once doesn't free you of such rights.
That's basically why #OpenAI and friends are so scared by current lack of sustainable business models for their #LLM: they need money to keep Judges away.
But anyway I still have to find a single person that debate with technical competence and in good faith the derivative nature of LLMs from the text corpora compressed in their models.
As for the Hacking License not being a Free Software license, it's debatable after a careful read since the only thing you cannot do with the software is to prevent others from enjoining the same freedom it grants you.
Yet I've never claimed it is Free Software because, sadly, I'm forced to move beyond Free Software by its own limit.
OTOH I'm proud that it's not an #OpenSource license as I'll never submit it to #OSI corrupted #gatekeepers.¹
As for #FLOSS, it's a term designed to confuse free software values with corporate propaganda while marginalizing hackers: its a leaking abstraction designed to fool developers and exploit their naive groupthinking. Having been fooled myself. Never again. 😉
____
¹ The way OSI tried to #openwash the #OSAID, with an over complicated process that doubled #Meta's lobbyists' votes to exclude training data from the requirements confirmed my opinion about them.
@[email protected]
The way #LLM are voiding classic #copyleft has been experimentally demonstrated years ago, when #GitHub #Copilot was caught distributing well known #AGPLv3 code with a permissive license and wrong author attribution.
Also, technically that incident demonstrated how Copilot's model itself is a derivative work of copylefted works: if a lossy compression of copyrighted material is still subject to authors' #copyright, encoding such compression as arrays of floats that can be executed by virtual processors with a dedicated architecture (so called "inference" engines) does't change its nature of derivative work. Similarly violating copyrights of millions of authors at once doesn't free you of such rights.
That's basically why #OpenAI and friends are so scared by current lack of sustainable business models for their #LLM: they need money to keep Judges away.
But anyway I still have to find a single person that debate with technical competence and in good faith the derivative nature of LLMs from the text corpora compressed in their models.
As for the Hacking License not being a Free Software license, it's debatable after a careful read since the only thing you cannot do with the software is to prevent others from enjoining the same freedom it grants you.
Yet I've never claimed it is Free Software because, sadly, I'm forced to move beyond Free Software by its own limit.
OTOH I'm proud that it's not an #OpenSource license as I'll never submit it to #OSI corrupted #gatekeepers.¹
As for #FLOSS, it's a term designed to confuse free software values with corporate propaganda while marginalizing hackers: its a leaking abstraction designed to fool developers and exploit their naive groupthinking. Having been fooled myself. Never again. 😉
____
¹ The way OSI tried to #openwash the #OSAID, with an over complicated process that doubled #Meta's lobbyists' votes to exclude training data from the requirements confirmed my opinion about them.
@[email protected]
GitHub CopyALot distributes GPL code with wrong attribution and a permissive license
happyborg@giacomo
#LLM code generation is like a zip archive being distributed without a license.
@[email protected] @doctormo
#LLM code generation is like a zip archive being distributed without a license.
@[email protected] @doctormo
@[email protected]
More a lossy compression than a zip archive. You know, the "hallucinations" are just decompression artifacts.
But yes, doesn't change a dime as for the #llm being a derivative work of the human readable source (as Debian ML Policy describe it).
@[email protected]
@[email protected]
More a lossy compression than a zip archive. You know, the "hallucinations" are just decompression artifacts.
But yes, doesn't change a dime as for the #llm being a derivative work of the human readable source (as Debian ML Policy describe it).
@[email protected]
@[email protected]
@giacomo Ok, none which have anything to do with anything. LLM being a derivative work of human readable sources is not an established fact, or any legal ruling.
Debian's policy is a policy, not a fact.
You're just spreading FUD and know nothing about the topic.