cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/44059967
for those not familiar with Mark Pilgrim, he is/was a prolific author, blogger, and hacker who abruptly disappeared from the internet in 2011.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.bestiver.se/post/968527
Well, I do not get his point, the code has been completely rewritten. Not to mention that the new license is much better than the old one.
If the llm they used was trained on the original code, the result was not legally rewritten. To change licensing without buy in from all original authors, the new code must be fully original from spec. Ignoring the legal definitions for convenience opens the door for corporations to steal open source and copyleft materials and strip away the licensing requirements.
That’s a wild claim you’re making. So far, it looks like the code is completely new, and for this case, it doesn’t really matter where it comes from. New code - new license.
If the LLM training data is based on / has used GPL code, this might set an interesting legal precedent.
This is a vast downgrade; stripping the GPL is an obvious attempt at nuking open source by bad faith actors. See what’s happening with AOSP, which would be impossible under GPL.
The day GPL stops being used is the day every major tech company will start slowly but surely closing their code down until open source is completely dead
What is happening with AOSP has nothing to do with the license. This project is not being developed by the community, but by Google for Google’s money, and Google can do whatever it wants with it. It’s silly to be offended by this. Anyone who is dissatisfied can fork the project and do whatever they want with it, if they can manage *(well, no, without Google’s resources, this is of course unrealistic).
One of the more “interesting” additional aspects is that courts have decided that works of generative models are not copyrightable… so one can’t license them either.
