On 5/31/24 18:11, Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote:
I'm not convinced. I think we are talking about existing implications of copyright that should be resolved through case law in the United States.
I don't hold my breath: The cases may never be resolved and be settled out of court with conspicuous payments.
This is a /really/ good point and one that we have the /full power to address,/ and to promote the solution rather than just complain: we should not /heedlessly/ enter into corporate terms of service just to do our operations.
you're **vastly** overestimating your power to drag your friends and family and colleagues, and private+public services and the rest of the world out of Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, X-twitter, Telegram, GitHub, GitLab, Amazon, Google Search, Bing, Windows ... you get the gist.
So, why can't you do that, Stef?
I think you could be teaching a course on network effect but instead you're choosing to ask rhetorical questions.
I think one of your "mega corp" sponsors might be offended if you did.
Stop right there: OSI isn't afraid of offending one sponsors, we don't respond to them. We are lucky to have many supporters, including a philanthropic foundation. OSI responds to the public only, it's our legal mandate and our mission. Losing one sponsor or two is not my concern, if it's the right thing for Open Source.
I did run into such a constraint while working on the ETSI issue for OSI.
I don't know what constraint you're referring to, your engagement at ETSI predates me. And I don't care: the ETSI issue was cured after you left and ETSI is not a threat anymore, thanks.
People need to be aware that there are places that corporate-sponsored Open Source non-profits can't tread, and leadership on those issues must come from elsewhere.
You're insinuating that OSI is not independent and that's simply false and offensive. OSI is not the volunteer-ran organization of the early days, we have staff dedicating their time and energy to the mission, with no fear of defending Open Source, even if that means irritating sponsors. Whether you like it or not, leadership is coming from OSI's credibility as a convener of difficult conversations and we're demonstrating we can do just that, collaborating in the open with multiple stakeholders with different interests. Let's focus on the original question > On Sat, May 25, 2024, 06:55 Miles Georgi <azi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi! If I open-source a project with a free license, if code from that project winds up being used as training data or prompt data to a code-generating AI to generate similar code, would that generated code be considered a derived work under any circumstances? And does that potentially depend on what license is chosen? Nobody knows yet. HTH stef _______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
