If it's pretty fucking simple, can you point to the statement in the linked post that supports this assertion? What it says is "According to the notice, the district court ruled that using the books to train LLMs was fair use", and while I accept that this doesn't mean the same would be true for software, I don't see anything in the FSF's post that contradicts the idea that training on GPLed software would also be fair use. I'm not passing a value judgement here, I'm a former board member of the FSF and I strongly believe in the value and effectiveness of copyleft licenses, I'm just asking how you get from what's in the post to such an absolute assertion.
replyYet another instance of people jumping to comments based on the title of the submission alone. They don't mention GPL even once in that post...
replyIt's pretty fucking simple: a judge needs to decide that, not armchair lawyers on HN.
replyWe know AI will be pushed through. No matter the laws
replywhat I keep wondering is what kind of laws will be rendered useless with the precedent they'll cause. Can this be beginning of the end of copyright and intellectual property?
replyCopyright, possibly. Intellectual property more broadly, no. AI has 0 impact on trademark law, quite clearly (which is anchored in consumer protection, in principle). Patent law is perhaps more related, but it's still pretty far.
replyWhy are you wondering? Any law that limits the ability of capital owners to extract wealth will be overturned, and not just from AI, that's global in every industry everywhere there are humans.
replyIn a way, I think so. Just let the code recreate existing code, say it's AI code and doesn't break any copyright laws
replyDoubt it. I'm sure it will have an exclusion where for example using genAI to train on or replicate leaked or reverse-engineered Windows code will constitute copyright infringement, but doing the same for copyleft will be allowed. Always in favor of corporate interests.
reply