479
(page 2) 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] nednobbins@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

It's otherwise a fairly well written article but the title is a bit misleading.

In that context, scare quotes usually mean that generative AI was trained on someone's work and produced something strikingly similar. That's not what happened here.

This is just regular copyright violations and unethical behavior. The fact that it was an AI company is mostly unrelated to their breaches. The author covers 3 major complaints and only one of them even mentions AI and the complaint isn't about what the AI did it's about what was done with the result. As far as I know the APL2.0 itself isn't copyrighted and nobody cares if you copy or alter the license itself. The problem is that you can't just remove the APL2.0 from some work it's attached to.

[-] delirious_owl@discuss.online 1 points 2 months ago

This is great. So all their VC-funded work will get released publicly, and we all benefit.

I don't see why people are upset that FOSS projects are getting VC funding for development..

[-] nednobbins@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago

Haha. Maybe.

I doubt the VCs will provide much followup funding if they can't control the code base but weirder things have happened.

[-] delirious_owl@discuss.online 1 points 2 months ago

If Mr. Money bags comes to you with a contract that says anything about IP or equity, tell them to fuck off

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2024
479 points (99.4% liked)

Open Source

31696 readers
447 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS