Daniel Lange writes:
> From Paul Wise:
>> I note that fair use isn't a worldwide concept and other parts of the
>> world have the more varied and restricted concept of "fair dealing".
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Influence_internationally
>>
From Paul Wise:
I note that fair use isn't a worldwide concept and other parts of the
world have the more varied and restricted concept of "fair dealing".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Influence_internationally
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing
So, as much as possible, we
On Wed, 15 Mar 2023 at 04:44, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
> > I do not know
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> I do not know personally "Bradley M. Kuhn"
> but I appreciate very much his
On Sat, 4 Mar 2023 at 05:16, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
Dear Richard,
I do
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> - then I decided to [restrict] my projects repositories as database
>
Hey, everyone, as many of you probably know, I've been involved with many of
the GPL and AGPL enforcement efforts that are (publicly) known to have happen
in the USA since 1999, and also have been involved with the drafting process
of various copyleft licenses. I currently am continuing that
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 at 05:31, Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
> [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
> [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
>
> > About upgrading
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
[[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
[[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]
> About upgrading A/L/GPLv3 in A/L/GPLv4, it seems to me quite an
> urgent
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 19:23, Roberto A. Foglietta
wrote:
> Everyone that has a kind of urgency about doing business can employ me
> and I will set up a near-complete solution for them that I did not
> explain to everyone
The "near-complete" does not mean that it is work-in-progress. It
means
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 15:36, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> > "Roberto" == Roberto A Foglietta writes:
>
> Roberto> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 19:08, Russ Allbery
> wrote:
> >>
> >> No. It's entirely possible that using databases as training sets
> >> for an AI/ML engine is fair use
> "Roberto" == Roberto A Foglietta writes:
Roberto> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 19:08, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>
>> No. It's entirely possible that using databases as training sets
>> for an AI/ML engine is fair use under existing United States law
>> and precedent as long as
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 08:33, Roberto A. Foglietta
wrote:
>
One more thing about this following:
>
> 2. if an author does not exercise a right for a long period of time
> enforcing it then that right is lost for the principle of "usucapio"
> in latin
The "usucapio" principle might not be
On Tue, 28 Feb 2023 at 06:31, Paul Wise wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2023-02-27 at 01:45 +0100, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
>
> > Because the principle of the copyright existence is about protecting
> > the authors' exclusive of that {business, commercial, marketing}
> > rights.
>
> The purpose of
On Mon, 2023-02-27 at 01:45 +0100, Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
> Because the principle of the copyright existence is about protecting
> the authors' exclusive of that {business, commercial, marketing}
> rights.
The purpose of copyright is allegedly (in the USA) "To promote the
Progress of
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 19:08, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> No. It's entirely possible that using databases as training sets for an
> AI/ML engine is fair use under existing United States law and precedent as
> long as that use is sufficiently transformative (the first factor of the
> test, and I
"Roberto A. Foglietta" writes:
> - then I decided to protect my projects repositories as database
> (collection) in addition to the standard way to protect the code with
> a well-known license
> - because of the copyright law about databases, if someone creates a
> larger database that contains
"Roberto A. Foglietta" writes:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 07:16, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> This is definitely not true in the United States; there is a Supreme
>> Court decision saying the exact opposite. The ruling in Google
>> v. Oracle said Google's commercial and business use of Oracle's
>>
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 08:50, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> "Roberto A. Foglietta" writes:
>
> > A totally automatic procedure like web crawling and web indexing
> > re-enter in your example, perfectly. However, the input collection that
> > a ML/AI training system needs is a protectable work because
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 08:38, Roberto A. Foglietta
wrote:
>
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 07:16, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >
> > "Roberto A. Foglietta" writes:
> >
[...]
>
> No court ruling was ever emitted in favour of Google vs Oracle
> leveraging fair use but it was an agreement between the two
"Roberto A. Foglietta" writes:
> A totally automatic procedure like web crawling and web indexing
> re-enter in your example, perfectly. However, the input collection that
> a ML/AI training system needs is a protectable work because the data
> should be structured, selected and properly labeled
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 at 07:16, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> "Roberto A. Foglietta" writes:
>
> > - fair use cannot include {business, commercial, marketing} rights in
> > anyway and in any conditions
>
> This is definitely not true in the United States; there is a Supreme Court
> decision saying the
"Roberto A. Foglietta" writes:
> - fair use cannot include {business, commercial, marketing} rights in
> anyway and in any conditions
This is definitely not true in the United States; there is a Supreme Court
decision saying the exact opposite. The ruling in Google v. Oracle said
Google's
On Fri, 2023-02-24 at 11:37 -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> As a general principle, as a free software advocate, I approve of an
> expansive definition of fair use and believe that far more uses of
> copyrighted material should be fair use than are normally considered fair
> use today. Expansive
On February 27, 2023 12:45:38 AM UTC, "Roberto A. Foglietta"
wrote:
>On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 at 21:47, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>
>> "Roberto A. Foglietta" writes:
>>
>> > My proposal to apply the GPLv3 or AGPLv3 - not directly to an object
>> > but - to a collection of objects using the database
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 at 21:47, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> "Roberto A. Foglietta" writes:
>
> > My proposal to apply the GPLv3 or AGPLv3 - not directly to an object
> > but - to a collection of objects using the database protection,
> > automatically also solves the problem of a blurry "fair use"
>
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 at 21:47, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> I am not a lawyer, let alone a copyright lawyer, and have only an amateur
> Internet understanding of the nature of compilation copyrights (and they
> may well also vary by jurisdiction), but my understanding (possibly
> incorrect) of the law
"Roberto A. Foglietta" writes:
> My proposal to apply the GPLv3 or AGPLv3 - not directly to an object
> but - to a collection of objects using the database protection,
> automatically also solves the problem of a blurry "fair use"
> definition. However, to be more incisive about "fair use", it
Hi all,
in these two threads
* https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2023/02/msg00017.html
* https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2023/02/msg00022.html
we had the chance to confront each other about the emerging A.I. mass
adoption and about which licensing model would be useful to adopt
On Sun, 26 Feb 2023 at 09:09, Roberto A. Foglietta
wrote:
>
ERRATA CORRIGE
> I hope this helps to acknowledge and convince us - as the open-source
> and software-libre community - about the great responsabilitiy that is
> a burden on our shoulders. Such a responsibility cannot be delegated to
>
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 01:03, Roberto A. Foglietta
wrote:
>
About this in the following I wish to add a link to a very interesting
article that I found and which expresses a reasonable concern about
the mass adoption of a potentially manipulative technology like A.I.
can be. And probably, it
Sam Hartman writes:
> Russ, I'm sure you are aware, but things get very interesting if the
> input to AI training is not fair use.
> In particular, if Github copilot is a derivative work of everything fed
> to it (including all the copylefted works), that gets kind of awkward
> for Microsoft.
> "Russ" == Russ Allbery writes:
Russ> To add to this, I'm fairly sure that the companies that are
Russ> training AI models on, say, every piece of text they can find
Russ> on the Internet, or all public GitHub repositories, are going
Russ> to explicitly argue that doing so
Gerardo Ballabio writes:
> As I understand, that is an open legal question. The Affero GPL would be
> such a license *if* the training dataset would be considered part of the
> code. While that does seem to make sense, as AI code is essentially
> non-functional without the training, I am not
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 10:27, Gerardo Ballabio
wrote:
>
> If I am not mistaken, the GPLv3 was developed to clarify some
> ambiguous language in the GPLv2, mostly with respect to patents. It
> doesn't address SaaS -- you are still free to modify the code and keep
> your modifications private, even
Roberto A. Foglietta wrote:
> cloud technologies posed a challenge to the GPLv2 because under that
license everyone has the right to change the code but do not share it
as long as s/he uses it internally which is exactly how the SaaS
works. To fulfil this lack of freedom, the GPLv3 was proposed.
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 08:06, Roberto A. Foglietta
wrote:
>
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 05:23, Charles Plessy wrote:
> >
One more thing about this:
> - Joe tests the NN with the 10+1 images of TS and decides if the NN is
> fine or not. If he decides that it is fine and it can go into
>
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 05:23, Charles Plessy wrote:
>
> Dear Mo,
>
> thank you for the heads-up.
>
> I was using permissive licenses in the past thinking about making life
> easier to individuals, but I feel robbed by massive scrapping to train
> AI models.
>
> Just in case I updated my email
Dear Mo,
thank you for the heads-up.
I was using permissive licenses in the past thinking about making life
easier to individuals, but I feel robbed by massive scrapping to train
AI models.
Just in case I updated my email signature.
Also, is there a DFSG-free license that forces the training
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 at 00:16, M. Zhou wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> Recap:
> The modern practice of AI has blurred the boundary between the code and data,
> which leads to some potential ambiguity to the interpretation of the
> definition of
> open source as well as the respective licenses. Such
Hi folks,
Recap:
The modern practice of AI has blurred the boundary between the code and data,
which leads to some potential ambiguity to the interpretation of the definition
of
open source as well as the respective licenses. Such ambiguous interpretation
in fact deviates from and violates the
41 matches
Mail list logo
