- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
It would be interesting to see whether the BSD community finds a way to keep working with Asahi under the new terms.
They could go GPL too. :)
Asahi dual-licensing would be difficult, because then it’d be out there as MIT or BSD, which they don’t want. The BSD using custom-licensed parts - the BSD projects probably don’t want that.
“Sad to see Asahi out there burning bridges for no reason… relicensing m1n1 and drivers under GPL2-or-later, seemingly without the consent of all prior contributors, under the guise of “defending against AI bad actors”, seems entirely disingenuous and misguided.”
“no reason” but there’s reasons anyway and those are “entirely disingenuous and misguided”
Too bad [their] twitter posts don’t go into actual arguments. Why is it supposedly disingenuous? Why misguided? Are there better alternatives? Probably not.
Isn’t AI and already rendering those licenses moot? AI data sets don’t care what type of license the code it scraped caries. and probably most AI code being generated for private companies is based on non-permissive licenses. yet nothing can be done about it.
to look at it another way: since anything an llm spits out is public domain, whoever commanded it do so is automatically in breach of the gpl unless they can show evidence that there is no copyleft material in the training data at all.
If you can compare the code and it matches you probably have a good case if the AI user can’t demonstrate it’s not coming from you.
There’s different kinds of datasets. Some respect, select and disclose licenses, others do not.
Some model trainers use any data they can, others are selective on what they train on.
It can also be a decision on principle rather than current or future enforcability. If you say “don’t copy this” and someone blatantly does, the morality is clearer than if you didn’t specifically say that.
There’s also a question of how court rulings and law may change the situation of enforcability and usage/ignorance risk.
MIT requires attribution too. GPL is, at the very least, a stronger statement of intention and demand. It can also be seen as protest or indication of a broader move of corporate AI exploitation leading to damage to the whole FOSS ecosystem, with additional restrictions being applied. Corps that would use AI now can’t use the MIT product anymore like before.
I am not entirely sure why the GPLv2 license wouldn’t work for the BSDs, but either way I doubt that the problem was so big that it really required a license change. Everything in life is a trade-off, and I think the trade-off of not supporting the BSDs to prevent potential bad faith actors from “stealing the code without attribution” is a really bad trade-off.
I am not entirely sure why the GPLv2 license wouldn’t work for the BSDs,
The GPL is a copyleft license. Derivative and combined works must be published under the same license.
You can use BSD with GPL and then publish as GPL, but you can not publish as BSD.
In a perfect world we wouldn’t even need licenses, or just use BSD style ones, but alas… And thus moving to a copyleft license is the best move for sure.
AI bubble has shown that if you don’t have billions of dollars for lawyers, your IP will be copied and compressed into an LLM and you won’t be able to do anything about it, regardless of license. But at least Apple won’t be able to profit from Asahi team work and BSDs won’t be able to use drivers from Asahi. So much winning.
