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.