pchestek4d ago
CA law prohibits use of open source licenses for AI https://github.blog/news-insights/policy-news-and-insights/github-joins-coalition-advocating-for-fixes-to-california-ai-transparency-act-to-protect-open-source/ #AI #OpenSource #OSI
GitHub joins coalition advocating for fixes to California AI Transparency Act to protect open source

We’re calling for targeted amendments to resolve conflicts with open source licensing and align with international transparency frameworks.

The GitHub Blog
Show threadJenniferplusplus

@pchestek I'm not seeing how this is incompatible with open source licensing. It's already well established that these licenses can and do oblige the recipient to share certain information. Almost all require attribution. Many require sharing modifications and derivatives. Apache 2.0 requires sharing nearly arbitrary notices.

Obliging the recipient to disclose the use of the software is not much different

Jun 24 at 12:24amWeb
Show threadBradley M. Kühn 🏳️‍🌈2d ago

@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).

Show threadJenniferplusplus2d ago
@bkuhn @pchestek compatible in principle is what I meant. It seems like a question of the FSF, or OSI, or ASF, or maybe the Linux foundation getting some lawyers to write new versions of some licenses with a disclosure requirement. Which is well within their means to do
Show threadBradley M. Kühn 🏳️‍🌈2d ago

(1/5) @jenniferplusplus

Of the 501(c)(3)'s, obviously ASF would have to handle any updates to their license, & #FSF to theirs.

#OSI has historically been careful not to “cross the streams” to become *both* a license evaluator (i.e., OSI-certification) & a license steward. I'm sure that will continue now that the OSI leadership situation has improved greatly with @duane as Executive Director.

¹ But, I realize now that my initial take was backwards (hence update that now footnotes to here).

…

Show threadBradley M. Kühn 🏳️‍🌈2d ago

(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 …

Show threadBradley M. Kühn 🏳️‍🌈2d ago

(3/5)…rn AFAIK ∄ #FOSS LLM-Gen-AI systems².

So, what FOSS project is specifically harmed *right now* by the rules in SB-942 “California #AI Transparency Act”?

#Microsoft's #GitHub doesn't say so in their statement on SB-942; they just note that FOSS licenses can't be revoked, which is “technically correct”.
∴ if no #LLM-gen-AI systems *are* FOSS (yet), why does it matter *now*?

² & no, stuff that's minimally OSAID-compliant still doesn't count, IMO. #OSAID was a travesty upon #OpenSource. …

Show threadBradley M. Kühn 🏳️‍🌈2d ago

(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…

Show threadBradley M. Kühn 🏳️‍🌈2d ago

(5/5)…@jenniferplusplus
re: maybe #LinuxFoundation could help by becoming a license steward.

That'd be a disaster — as LF's a 501(c)(6). For-profit companies should never have influence over #FOSS licenses.
501(c)(6)'s are legally required to serve the common business interest of their members³, most of which share common business interest to exploit #OpenSource to improve their proprietary software products.

³ Note #Microsoft (which owns #GitHub) is ¹/₁₂ᵗʰ of LF's Platinum ($500k/yr) members.