The license still allows AI training theft. What is needed is an OSS EULA that forbids IP theft, since the governments are corrupt and still allow it.

The EULA needs a clause that 10% of the market cap of a company will be paid to the IP holder upon violating it.

▲

RobotToaster 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The current argument AI owners use is that it falls under fair use as "transformative use", so the licence is entirely irrelevant. If that wasn't the case anything trained on GPL code would have to be released under the GPL.

I'm now sure what if any argument they are using in Europe. Most countries here have a "fair dealing" exemption which is similar to USA "fair use", but it doesn't include "transformative use". The closest would be "pastiche", but that wouldn't really cover it.

▲

rlkamn 2 days ago | parent [-]

EULA != license, which is the entire point.

▲

Tomte 2 days ago | parent [-]

Licenses are contracts, just like an EULA.

And if you expand the acronym EULA you will actually find that it is… a license agreement.

▲

rlkamn 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, and the point is that in order to obtain and keep the license, you have to fulfill additional clauses that you agreed to by accepting the EULA.

If EULA is the same as a license, why would MSFT not just use a license? The intellectual contortions of the AI boosters here are stunning.

▲

pocksuppet a day ago | parent [-]

"an end-user license agreement is the same as a license agreement, so why do they use an end-user license agreement instead of a license agreement?"

I don't understand this question.

	▲	312918967 a day ago \| parent [-]
		No one but, you, an AI moron, has asked this question. Get your AI girlfriend to explain it to you.

▲

23hazu 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

And the AI swine reacted by downvoting the top comment again now that arguments for an EULA are made. Fucking fascists.

▲

pocksuppet a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

A license is a waiver of your rights that are enshrined in law and enforced by the government. It can't take away rights that other people are allowed, unless you get them to agree voluntarily in exchange for something they feel is of equal or greater value.

For example you can say someone can only copy this CD if they pay you $10. Ordinarily you're allowed to sue them for copying it, but you're allowed to promise not to sue them, under any condition whatsoever, such as them paying you $10.

But you can't say someone can only resell this CD if they pay you $10. You already don't have the right to sue them for reselling it, so they have no reason to listen to you.

▲

9dev 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That is a lost cause, because the AI companies are above the law now. Copyright doesn't apply to them, felonies committed by them (via their agents) are not prosecuted, and if the AI bubble were to burst, they would be bailed out because by now, all American pensions and the ETFs of the rest of the world depend on them staying fantastical capital black holes.

But what we still can do is stop programming for free for Big Tech, and this license at least gets us closer toward that goal.