Roberto A. Foglietta wrote: > cloud technologies posed a challenge to the GPLv2 because under that license everyone has the right to change the code but do not share it as long as s/he uses it internally which is exactly how the SaaS works. To fulfil this lack of freedom, the GPLv3 was proposed.
Well, not exactly. 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. 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. If you explicitly publish a dataset under the GPL or AGPL, I suppose that anybody who makes use of that dataset would be required to comply with that. And if you don't explicitly license it at all, I suppose that nobody would be authorized to use it except for "fair use". But you must be careful or you might end up "licensing" your data without even knowing. For example, I don't know the terms of service of ChatGPT, but it seems a fair guess to assume that whatever you write into it, you give them unlimited rights to use it. And that may easily extend to whatever you write into a document processor or other software that has a "feature" of "integrating" with ChatGPT, even if you're running it on your own computer (I think I've read that even LibreOffice is developing such a feature!). Gerardo
