For super permissible licenses like MIT then it’s probably fine. Maybe folks would need to list the training data and all the licenses (since a common requirement of many of even the most permissible licenses is to include a copy of the license).
As far as I know, a court hasn’t ruled on whether clauses like “share alike” or “copy left” (think CC BY-SA or GPL) would require anything special or not allow models. Anyone saying otherwise is just making a best guess. My best guess is (pessimistically) that it won’t do any good because things produced by a machine cannot be copyrighted. But I haven’t done much of a deep dive. I got really interested in the differences between many software licenses a few years back and did some reading but I’m far from an expert.
repungnant_canary@lemmy.world 6 months ago
CC (not sure about MIT) virtually always requires attribution, but as GitHub Copilot showed right now open-“media” authors have basically no way of enforcing their rights.
Dkarma@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Probably cuz they gave them away when they open licensed…you know…how it’s supposed to work
repungnant_canary@lemmy.world 6 months ago
In most jurisdictions you can’t give away copyright - that’s why CC0 exists. And again most open-source and CC licences require attribution, if you use those licences you have a right to be attributed