Re: Brief update about software freedom and artificial intelligence
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 10:27, Gerardo Ballabio
<gerardo.ballabio@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If I am not mistaken, the GPLv3 was developed to clarify some
> ambiguous language in the GPLv2, mostly with respect to patents. It
> doesn't address SaaS -- you are still free to modify the code and keep
> your modifications private, even if you run a publicly accessible
> service on the modified code.
>
> The Affero GPL <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html> was
> developed to specifically address SaaS. This license requires that if
> you run a service over a network, you must offer the corresponding
> source code to all users of the service.
Thanks Gerardo for your contribution. Then, integrating it in my
previous e-mail, I can say that wherever I wrote GPLv3, it could be
used AGPLv3 instead. However, the example I did was based on the
transfer of the NN binary from one party to another so the GPLv3 was
correctly used in that case because the distribution. Instead, when
the NN is trained and used internally for offering a SaaS, then AGPLv3
should be considered by the authors.
>
> Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Also, is there a DFSG-free license that forces the training dataset and
> the result of the training process to be open source if a work under that
> license is present in the training data? Would GPLv3 be sufficient?
>
> As I understand, that is an open legal question. The Affero GPL would
> be such a license *if* the training dataset would be considered part
> of the code. While that does seem to make sense, as AI code is
> essentially non-functional without the training, I am not aware that
> there has ever been a pronouncement by a court of law that affirms or
> denies it, nor I am aware of any free/open source license that
> contains language that deals specifically with that issue, and I'm
> pretty sure that there's lot of room for lawyers to argue their point.
Geranrdo, thanks again for your contribution because you highlight the
main point of my proposal: wherever the GPLv3 or AGPLv3 is used, the
most important thing is protecting the collection with such a license
and not every single files/data which instead could have a completely
different authorship and license. This is possible every time the
various parts of the collection have been licensed under terms that
are compatible with GPLv3 or AGPLv3 applied to the whole collection.
Every file/data that does not fulfil this requirement then it should
be delivered apart even better in a different manner or repository.
Best regards, R-
Reply to: