* Eli Zaretskii <[email protected]> [2021-07-24 11:11]: > When I see a radical view, I call it "radical". Promoting Free > Software requires healthy pragmatism, because we want the Free > Software to flourish and remain relevant by picking up the advances in > technology. Rejecting such new technologies just because there's some > doubts expressed by someone in some blog is "radical", and IMO > eventually detrimental to Free Software development. We should > instead carefully and independently assess the issues and make our own > judgment based on specific details of each such development. We > cannot run away of every idea because some people say it might cause > trouble in some cases.
I am totally for advances of technology as long as we foster free software and freedom in computing. We have too little of AI today in 21st century. Question is definitely not so general how presented in your paragraph above. It is very specific, related on how to solve licensing issues. There are no doubts that code may be copied verbatin, as here is authorized and official documentation by Github related to Copilot: https://docs.github.com/en/github/copilot/research-recitation It is not related to various other AIs, etc. I am not sure if the same AI is even used in Pen.el. It may not be relevant. In the Copilot documentation it says: Quote: This investigation demonstrates that GitHub Copilot can quote a body of code verbatim, but that it rarely does so, and when it does, it mostly quotes code that everybody quotes, and mostly at the beginning of a file, as if to break the ice. Additionally I have been using OpenAI and found not 0.1 percent verbatim responses, I could find those pages on Internet from where verbatim paragraphs were cited. I am still in playground. I can find paragraphs from websites from our competitors as a response. I still have to discover I in the AI in the playground of OpenAI service. Licensing issues I have made and for which I have found partial solution are in no way related to rejecting, rather to adopting it in free software. My question was how we can adopt the code generated into free software (for example by using Pen.el) as it generates code by using other GPL free software without attributions. Partially it is resolved in the US, though unproven and with great conflict with authors. It does not give assurance. I am not sure if I can generate the code and that it is really "original" and infringement free. Is the OpenAI company giving me some kind of guarantee that I will be held without liabilities if I use that code? Thus those issues may be temporarily brushed off with "fair use" in US, they remain unsolved in the US until the first few court cases or class action suite, and are not resolved on international level at all. Julia Reda's statement does not apply in all jurisdictions. At this moment there is no verified legal statement by let us say FSF attorneys or legal experts or some other organization that will confirm legal status of such generated code or text on international level. Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns In support of Richard M. Stallman https://stallmansupport.org/
