Home | Notifications | New Note | Local | Federated | Search | Logout
Note Detail
Reply to @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org
Christine Lemmer-Webber@cwebber@social.coop (2026-10-15 22:03:53)
@bkuhn @trashheap I appreciate the clarification on your position here.
I still do hold the positions that attribution are the glue that hold the commons together, and it's important that we fight to preserve it, and not give the impression that it is being voluntarily waived in the face of LLMs.
---Reply---
Aaron Williamson@copiesofcopies@social.coop (2026-10-15 23:10:40)
@cwebber @bkuhn @trashheap IMO the real challenge to FOSS enforcement against LLM producers is the same one everyone else has: if the training is fair use because the resulting model is transformative, the producer doesn’t need a license (and doesn’t have to respect the terms of any existing license). It’s still early early days in terms of court decisions, but this looks like the direction we’re headed in the US (though the outcome will likely vary depending on how much memorization a model can be shown to do).
Reply
---Replies---
Bradley M. Kühn@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org (2026-10-16 21:57:46)
@copiesofcopies
∃ **so many** cases pending! It seems to me we can't guess the outcome at this point with reliability beyond like a 1-to-100 (or more) chance against the field.
Also, keep in mind the way most software developers use LLM-gen-AI now is to modify a work in front of them: `git clone` something, then work with the #LLMGenAI to modify it. I don't see how a fair use defense will allow those changes to dodge license requirements.
Also, FOSS licenses are contracts, too.
Cc: @cwebber