Re: Brief update about software freedom and artificial intelligence
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 at 05:31, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
> > About upgrading A/L/GPLv3 in A/L/GPLv4, it seems to me quite an
> > urgent thing to do but challenging it in a court might happen years
> > from now. So there is a lot of time for preparation.
>
> Making a new version of the GPL is a big effort, and I'm the one who
> has to lead it. I have not been able to follow this discussion; it
> was long an complicated. If it described a reason to change the GPL,
> I could not see it.
>
> Would you please tell me the problem that you think the GPL needs to
> be changed for?
Microsoft Github Copilot has shown to use large blocks of code without
citing the author/project nor indicating the license terms about that
code. This is the tip of the iceberg only because the problem is much
worse than this and it will worsen faster. Debate is about fair use
but is a blurry definition and defining what is not "fair use" seems
not having gained enough consensus. Thus a general and standard
solution is required, IMHO.
- A/L/GPLv3 applies to source code and scripts that should be compiled
or run by an interpreter (not only but just to be specific)
- the AI/ML training engines use source code and scripts as data, this
might or might not be a fair use, but for sure is a novelty which is
not covered by A/L/GPLv3
- then I decided to protect my projects repositories as database
(collection) in addition to the standard way to protect the code with
a well-known license
- because of the copyright law about databases, if someone creates a
larger database that contains my database or a part of it, then they
have to comply with the license that I choose to protect my project as
a database.
At this point it is necessary to report how to upgrade these licenses
has been proposed but first a brief summary about fair use:
- fair use as legal term is a blurry one
- fair use cannot be limited but expanded by the authors/licenses
- fair use should include {testing, learning, storage} and usually it does
- fair use cannot include {business, commercial, marketing} rights in
any way and in any conditions and can relax these rights only a little
bit and for those activities/professions that have a clear social
role/value.
To better understand this point of view, I suggest digging into the
history of copyright. The London public library has a lot of material
about it considering that the UK was one of the first countries to
develop the law further than a mere top-down dictate.
THE PROPOSAL
A/L/GPLv4 is an update in which it will clearly state that the license
applies to the composition and the {business, commercial, marketing}
rights are reserved and exchanged for freedom. Then the license
presents a "fair use" open definition in which some rights {testing,
learning} are clearly included. Everything else should be brought back
in these two categories. Finally, the license should state that every
collection item that does not have its own specific copyright and
license note/header, it is licensed under A/GPLv3.
So, in the most simple case in which no any file report a specific
copyright note/header but just the repository, then this happens:
- git repository A is licensed with A/GPLv4
- the composition is under A/GPLv4
- every file is under A/GPLv3
Thus this equation takes place:
copyright : money ~alike~ copyleft : freedom
and the definition of "fair use" is not intended to "change the law"
but to give a standard interpretation of a blurry definition that
exists in all legislations but differently perceived and differently
written. Because the A/L/GPLv4 will have a global scope, then its
"fair use" definition/clarification will help many countries to align
to a standard definition and interpretation, We cannot change the law
but we can help those do that job to converge toward a standard and
reasonable definition.
Moreover, I suggest to remember in the license that without the moral
rights {authorship} the copyright itself has no meaning and thus all
related rights are void. Just to remember those companies who are used
to removing the name of authors from their source code headers in such
a way nobody, even an internal inspection can find them and verify
that all the rights have been properly and legally transferred. Again,
this would not change the world but acknowledge developers about their
rights. Education is as important as influencing as much ruling in
court, especially in open-source software-libre.
Everything above, IMHO and in the hope that it helps.
Best regards,
--
Roberto A. Foglietta
+49.176.274.75.661
+39.349.33.30.697
Reply to: