Re: Brief update about software freedom and artificial intelligence
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 15:36, Sam Hartman <hartmans@suchdamage.org> wrote:
>
> >>>>> "Roberto" == Roberto A Foglietta <roberto.foglietta@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Roberto> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 19:08, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> No. It's entirely possible that using databases as training sets
> >> for an AI/ML engine is fair use under existing United States law
> >> and precedent as long as that use is sufficiently transformative
> >> (the first factor of the test, and I suspect the most important
> >> one here).
>
> Roberto> Considering what you reported in the previous e-mail about
> Roberto> US national law in 17 U.S.C. § 107 in 1976, It is not
> Roberto> possible to use an entire or a significant portion of a
> Roberto> database for {business, commercial, marketing} purposes
> Roberto> without the copyright holder.
>
> Please stop!
> It's clear that you are not building support for your argument.
> You've made your case to the best of your ability and not been
> convincing.
>
> But beyond that, this discussion is no longer on topic for
> debian-project.
> Debian cannot decide what the law is.
> We've established that this situation is complicated.
> You've proposed various things that someone could do to limit the use of
> free software in AI training sets.
> Other people have pointed out that may or may not work.
> You think it will.
> You haven't managed to convince your critics..
> We won't know until this gets hashed out in courts.
>
> That's about the level of detail appropriate for debian-project.
> Further discussion of this issue at this time on this list does not
> serve the community.
Ok, then. No problem. This will be my last message on this topic.
However, my last suggestion here is to collect this material and share
it with the FSF and FSF Europe. My aim was not to convince people
(consensus gain) but to give technical details relevant to those who
have a law education but usually lack the ability to properly
understand technical IT mechanisms in detail. Only few have the
ability to master both sides. It is not about complexity [1], it is
about complication [2] and the complication arises because IT people
and law people have two completely mindsets and risk/value perceptions
and follow different rules to address them.
> We won't know until this gets hashed out in courts.
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.
About "uscapio" and related questions, there is a very very little
probability that someone will ever bring anyone in court and in case a
very little patch in the kernel will make a huge difference in finding
an agreement which is well known how it should be. The patch has been
shared with some kernel maintainers some months ago and it is not
pending to be applied because I did not complete all the steps
required. That patch implies license and technical changes in
perspectives, both.
> Debian cannot decide what the law is.
Law is somewhat different in different countries, starting from those
countries in which you have a better chance. There are many of them.
Do not try to win the world in a single step but play chess instead.
The king is the last piece to take, not the first one. If you feel in
danger, grant your position in all the countries in which it is
feasible and cheap enough. Bringing in allies is the first thing to
do. Moreover, allies can be cheap for Debian to acquire and very
costly for your counterparty to move on their side.
Everyone that has a kind of urgency about doing business can employ me
and I will set up a near-complete solution for them that I did not
explain to everyone - oh, it is a risky business, then. Nein, it is about
thinking out of the box and replicating the same scheme that worked in
the past in other similar cases. And yes, this would greatly help the
Debian community as well because it will break down every illusion
about finding another way to go.
Their resistance is futile (cit.) but enjoyable. :-)
Good luck, R-
[1] complexity (n.) "composite nature, quality or state of being
composed of interconnected parts," from complex. Meaning "intricacy".
[2] late Middle English: from late Latin compilation (n- ), from Latin
complicare ‘fold together’ - what can be fols, can be unfolded
(explained).
Reply to: