So what? You made your content available and someone downloaded it. Why is this even notable?

▲ not-kinsale-joe 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Can I scrape all GPL source code from github. Then use the code commercially and then say so what, they made their source code available to download?

▲

semiquaver an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Did someone do that in this case? I don’t see any indication let alone evidence that happened. And I don’t think it’s likely that it will.

Let me refer you to my earlier distinction between things that have happened and things you fear.

▲

amiga386 an hour ago | parent [-]

You may remember from 2021 that Microsoft's Copilot would gladly regurgitate the GPL-licensed Quake 3 source code, without giving you any indication it got it from there or that the GPL applies.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27710287

https://x.com/mitsuhiko/status/1410886329924194309

	▲	semiquaver 43 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Ok, so go yell at Microsoft about that incident instead of speculating about a different party doing a different thing.

▲

Artoooooor 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Oh, it would be so nice to force the Great Thieves like "open"AI to release their weights on GPL license...

▲

origini 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Right now, its legal to use this data to train a model.

Which is different than using the data 1 to 1.

▲

whizzter 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I think technically such a model should abide by the licence of the inputs, hence all models would probably be GPL if the FSF had resources to fight it and the legal profession had an inkling of the processes involved.

Or maybe the FSF is just waiting for everyone using AI code to become hooked and then subpoena every Antrophic/OAI/Codex customer and force the most massive source release in history (If Adobe/MS would file lawsuits vs the Craft apps and with their resources create legal precedent it could create chaos, maybe the only part stopping them right now from filing lawsuits is them realizing it could backfire since they're heavy AI users themselves).

	▲	origini 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		But as far as i know GPL does not prevent you from using it for training?
	▲	semiquaver 41 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Not a lawyer, are you?

▲

wtch98 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Can I scrape all GPL source code from github. Then use the code commercially and then say so what, they made their source code available to download?

Yes, that's the whole point of the GPL. Use it however you want, but don't restrict the next person

▲ jalict 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Would you also say that general licensing is irrelevant for everyone?

▲ semiquaver 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Of course not. But there’s no indication whatsoever that any license has been violated. Downloading a file from a free access server cannot violate license terms.

Fear that something will happen is not the same thing as evidence it has happened.

▲ 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲ philipwhiuk 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Downloading a file from a free access server cannot violate license terms.

Sure it can. If you're downloading it for commercial purposes (clearly the case) you're violating the license.

	▲	semiquaver 39 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		`> If you're downloading it for commercial purposes (clearly the case) you're violating the license.` No. Copyright doesn’t work that way, no matter how much you might wish it did. And it’s a very important thing for the web that it doesn’t. Legally speaking, it is extremely well established that downloading is not the type of copying that “copyright” concerns itself with. And the GPL and similar licenses are predicated on copyright laws. Once you make the content available in some other way, then copyright law might have something to say. People in tech used to make fun of “you wouldn’t download a car”. It’s sad that so many have reversed their principles the moment a convenient villain shows up.

▲ well_ackshually 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If only you could read the article and see that the vast majority of the assets are licensed under a non-commercial clause.

I guess we'll never know until you learn to read anything other than sheet music.