CassandrichMar 4

RE: https://chaos.social/@Foxboron/116170859737134271

The blatent use of "AI" to strip copyleft and claim that obvious derivatives are "reimplementations" has begun. This must be fought. Start filing license violation bug reports and abuse reports on projects like this.

(Link here because the quoted post author or their instance seems to have something wrong with their quoting permissions: https://hachyderm.io/@[email protected]ocial/116170859816301768)

Show threadRevK Mar 4
@dalias but doing so surely losses all copyright so licence does not matter?
Show threadCassandrichMar 4
@revk No, it doesn't. That's what they're trying to claim and warp the recent court case to say (a case that wasn't even about LLM output) and it's obvious nonsense.
Show threadAlexia Mar 4
@dalias @revk what about the official statement by US Congress? www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10922

is that... the "they" you're talking about?
Generative Artificial Intelligence and Copyright Law

Show threadCassandrich

@alexia @revk No, "they" is the "AI" industry and to some extent software industry that wants to seize and enclose FOSS.

The LoC page you linked agrees largely with what I said except not as strongly; it acknowledges that outputs and models may be derivative and may be infringing but allows that there might be cases that are "fair use".

Mar 4 at 5:10pmWeb
Show threadAlexia Mar 4
@dalias @revk ty! just wanted to clarify

Though, I think the original reply's point is moreso about how to interpret the human-authorship requirement

if I'm reading it right it'd be evaluated on a pretty much case-by-case basis whether there was enough human authorship but I am not a lawyer by any means