[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Brief update about software freedom and artificial intelligence

On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 08:06, Roberto A. Foglietta
<roberto.foglietta@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 05:23, Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> wrote:
> >

One more thing about this:

> - Joe tests the NN with the 10+1 images of TS and decides if the NN is
> fine or not. If he decides that it is fine and it can go into
> production, then Joe's employer should share all above stated.
> Instead, if he decides that it is crap, he will trash it and he can
> not share anything because the sharing will have zero value for
> anyone. This is compliant with the clause of fair use in which I
> explicitly added "testing" as a condition to avoid sharing. After all,
> if there is no value produced why should we force Joe to share his
> failure? In particular cases a failure (vulnerability) is valuable
> information but for security reasons it is better that Joe is not
> forced to comply with the GPLv3 terms. It is better to give Joe the
> freedom to share only those information that he considers safe to
> share in public. However, if Joe's company does a business with this -
> providing a PoC to a client - then they have to comply with GPLv3
> because the statements for which commercial and business are covered
> by GPLv3.

In this specific case the provider of the PoC could make a public
statement in which they promise to share under GPLv3 the PoC but only
after 3 months in order to give their client the opportunity to
develop an update that fixes the issue and test it properly. Then
their client do their job but they need 3 more months to grant their
clients have a reasonable time to update and test their systems. So,
they will make a public statement in which they grant their PoC
provider a legal coverage for every claim started in those 3 months
that they might be exposed for not having complied with the GPLv3
terms. In this way they have 3+3 months of time to fix a critical
issue and let their clients update their systems. In case the 3+3
months become 3+3 years, obviously their risk to face a trial with a
negative outcoming for them is much higher. So, after a reasonable
time, the PoC will be shared as supposed to be.

Best regards, R-

Reply to: