André Batista <[email protected]> writes:
> sex 15 mai 2026 às 04:28:18 (1778830098), [email protected] enviou: >> Hugo Buddelmeijer via "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System >> distribution." <[email protected]> writes: >> >> > Every example of LLM's regurgitating copyrighted text starts with a >> > prompt that is derived from that copyrighted text. >> > >> > Hugo >> >> This claim may be true at first sight, but copyright is about stealing >> creativity and not just stealing code verbatim. I continue to believe >> that we cannot ensure there will be no legal payment obligation to >> authors guilds at odds with free software for commercial use. >> > > I keep seeing people using the adversary's language to talk about copyright. > From where I come from, stealing is a word related to taking something away > from someone and GNU included it among the words to avoid when talking about > copyright. When someone copies copyrighted works they are not taking anything > away from copyright holders with or without license compliance. Whereas I agree with the GNU argument that "stealing" is an incorrect turn of phrase when applied to copyright infringement, I do think it makes sense to refer to plagiarism as "stealing", in line with "stolen valor" and the like. > Copyright was historicaly a means to control the freedom of press, of access > to knowledge, not a means to enpower authors, creators nor of being an > incentive to creativity. Loosing that perspective leads us to defend stances > which are not conductive to a free software world. The goal of free software > is to have a commons and user liberty by default, not to defend copyright > holders' interests. Granting a few mega-corps the sole rights to scrape, store, use, etc all copyrighted material and to sell derivative works does not trickle down, nor is it a step towards the commons. We should not ally ourselves with "AI"-megacorps but rather with the authors whose works are regurgitated word-for-word by LLMs, just like we should stand with musicians against the exploitative record companies, even in situations where the record company is self-interestedly pushing to weaken copyright in specific situations. Kind regards, pinoaffe
