But if it’s permissively licenced, couldn’t I just copy bits and pieces for my own project without asking?
Like I understand asking is always better and an opt in process for “the stack” or wtv would have been better received. Nevertheless, did they really have a legal obligation, rather than moral obligation, to ask given how this is licensed?
Taking GPL code would be a different situation right? They would have to also include it in their model creation… which theoretically they just could.
You can’t use GPL for LLMs if you don’t include a copy of the GPL license or link to the GPL license, you would also have to deal with conflicting licenses, somehow
Most of those “permissive” licenses require redistributors to redistribute copies of the license texts in derivative works.
But I bet these AI models aren’t doing that. And it’s a damn neat certainty that the vibe coders who use the AI model are not attaching a license disclosure containing every permissive licenses in GitHub. Even if their vibe coded app is arguably a derivative work.
I do not believe a permissive license has any notion of consent. You can’t stop someone from forking your code as long as they follow the rules of the license, like crediting you.
Even in GPL, you can’t stop someone from using your code, see Gnome’s recent arguements with Mint over their usage of an old version of their Calender app.
Others in the thread have mentioned we’ll see permissive licenses with exceptions for Ai in the near future. It’s a solution because that door is currently open.
I do not believe a permissive license has any notion of consent. You can’t stop someone from forking your code as long as they follow the rules of the license, like crediting you.
Does the LLM ever credit the original author when it spits out code?
You can’t stop someone from forking your code as long as they follow the rules of the license, like crediting you
In that case,though, you’re still respecting the wishes of the person applying that permissive license consensually, though.
That’s VERY different from mass harvesting all data without permission (or credit) for profit, which would probably be against the terms of even the most permissive licenses.
Their claim was they followed the licenses and only used code they were implicitly allowed to use. I’d like to see if that was just astroturf and bullshit.
Honestly, though this is one of the reasons why people prefer copyleft and avoid permissive licenses, because yeah anyone can profit monetarily off your work otherwise.
Sure but you moved the goalpost from ‘‘they weren’t allowed’’ to “they aren’t being honest”. There’s people in this thread who are in the repos, so we can find that out without assuming.
Also, at least their model is opensource and can easily be selfhosted on consumer hardware. Helps with your datacenter point from earlier. Like if this project does what it says its supposed to do, it’s genuinely interesting. If they are pushing the boundaries of permissive licensing then yeah that is really concerning.
But if it’s permissively licenced, couldn’t I just copy bits and pieces for my own project without asking?
Like I understand asking is always better and an opt in process for “the stack” or wtv would have been better received. Nevertheless, did they really have a legal obligation, rather than moral obligation, to ask given how this is licensed?
Taking GPL code would be a different situation right? They would have to also include it in their model creation… which theoretically they just could.
You can’t use GPL for LLMs if you don’t include a copy of the GPL license or link to the GPL license, you would also have to deal with conflicting licenses, somehow
Most of those “permissive” licenses require redistributors to redistribute copies of the license texts in derivative works.
But I bet these AI models aren’t doing that. And it’s a damn neat certainty that the vibe coders who use the AI model are not attaching a license disclosure containing every permissive licenses in GitHub. Even if their vibe coded app is arguably a derivative work.
…do you know what the word “consensually” means? 🤦🏻
I do not believe a permissive license has any notion of consent. You can’t stop someone from forking your code as long as they follow the rules of the license, like crediting you.
Even in GPL, you can’t stop someone from using your code, see Gnome’s recent arguements with Mint over their usage of an old version of their Calender app.
Others in the thread have mentioned we’ll see permissive licenses with exceptions for Ai in the near future. It’s a solution because that door is currently open.
Does the LLM ever credit the original author when it spits out code?
In that case,though, you’re still respecting the wishes of the person applying that permissive license consensually, though.
That’s VERY different from mass harvesting all data without permission (or credit) for profit, which would probably be against the terms of even the most permissive licenses.
Their claim was they followed the licenses and only used code they were implicitly allowed to use. I’d like to see if that was just astroturf and bullshit.
Honestly, though this is one of the reasons why people prefer copyleft and avoid permissive licenses, because yeah anyone can profit monetarily off your work otherwise.
Was likely bullshit. Just like just about everything else people behind for profit LLMs say about their business practices.
Almost certainly
Sure but you moved the goalpost from ‘‘they weren’t allowed’’ to “they aren’t being honest”. There’s people in this thread who are in the repos, so we can find that out without assuming.
Also, at least their model is opensource and can easily be selfhosted on consumer hardware. Helps with your datacenter point from earlier. Like if this project does what it says its supposed to do, it’s genuinely interesting. If they are pushing the boundaries of permissive licensing then yeah that is really concerning.
No. I included the lack of honesty in my original explanation.
If anyone’s moving goalposts, it’s you with your constant shifting from one point to the other to excuse their behavior.
Unless OP is a total lie, they clearly are.
Why are you assuming I am excusing their behaviour?