Remember if the OSI/FSF actually cared about the gas generators/theft/Palantir, anti LLM amendments would be introduced in GPLv4 & Apache v3 & BSDv7.
They freak out every time such possibilities are discussed, like “oh, no, the freedom number 0, that won’t be open source”, but I ask myself who decides what open source is. if it’s something really community-based, the community must be able to have a say in such matters, but they’re always dismissed, in favor of what a small group decided a few decades ago and imposes on us without any margin of popular participation
Thanks I’ve added another that does, I thought restrictions on training would include the moment Claude reads the code for modifications too but looking further I think you’re right.
They freak out every time such possibilities are discussed, like “oh, no, the freedom number 0, that won’t be open source”, but I ask myself who decides what open source is. if it’s something really community-based, the community must be able to have a say in such matters, but they’re always dismissed, in favor of what a small group decided a few decades ago and imposes on us without any margin of popular participation
Be the change you want to see https://github.com/non-ai-licenses/non-ai-licenses
I’m out for it as a profession the industry has made clear it’s ethics.
Edit: Here’s another that prohibits LLM usage not just training https://ihateailicense.eu/
Thanks for the link. I got an interest in licences that add restrictions to current open source ones
That’s just licenses to prevent use in training data, but other LLM related use is unspecified.
Thanks I’ve added another that does, I thought restrictions on training would include the moment Claude reads the code for modifications too but looking further I think you’re right.