If they are using GPL code, shouldn’t they also release their source code?
Comment on US Record Labels Sue AI Music Generators Suno and Udio for Copyright Infringement
grue@lemmy.world 6 months agoHaving all AI-generated code be either “viral” copyleft or illegal to use at all would certainly be better than allowing massive laundering of GPL-licensed code for exploitation in proprietary software.
realitista@lemmy.world 6 months ago
grue@lemmy.world 6 months ago
That’s the argument I would be making, but it certainly isn’t Microsoft’s (Copilot), OpenAI’s (Codex), etc’s position: they think the output is sufficiently laundered from the GPL training data so as not to constitute a derivative work (which means none of the original licenses – “open source” or otherwise – would apply, and the recipient could do whatever they want).
sunzu@kbin.run 6 months ago
Damn i see your point here tbh...
i am vaguely familiar with software licensing is GPL type of open source?
grue@lemmy.world 6 months ago
You could say that, LOL. It’s the OG of “copyleft” licenses (the guy that made it invented the concept), although “permissive” licenses (BSD, MIT) existed before.
“Copyleft” and “permissive” are the two major categories of Free Software (a.k.a. “open source”, although that term has different connotations) license. The difference between them is that “copyleft” requires future modifications by people other than the copyright holders to be released under the same terms, while “permissive” does not. In other words, “copyleft” protects the freedom of future users to control their computer by being able to modify the software on it, while “permissive” maximizes the freedom of other developers to do whatever they want with the code (including using it in proprietary apps, to exploit people).
See also: www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html