| ▲ | Orygin 2 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Freedom 0 is not violated. GPL includes restrictions for how you can use the software, yet it's still open source. You can do whatever you want with the software, BUT you must do a few things. For GPL it's keeping the license, distributing the source, etc. Why can't we have a different license with the same kind of restrictions, but also "Models trained on this licensed work must be open source". Edit: Plus the license would not be "GPL+restriction" but a new license altogether, which includes the requirements for models to be open. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | amszmidt 2 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
That is not really correct, the GNU GPL doesn't have any terms whatsoever on how you can use, or modify the program to do things. You're free to make a GNU GPL program do anything (i.e., use). I suggest a careful reading of the GNU GPL, or the definition of Free Software, where this is carefully explained. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||