On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 12:54:30 +0300 Efraim Flashner <efr...@flashner.co.il> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 12:13:38PM +0300, MSavoritias wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 09:52:36 +0200 > > Simon Tournier <zimon.touto...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Ian, all, > > > > > > On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 at 10:57, Ian Eure <i...@retrospec.tv> wrote: > > > > I think that LLM asks ethical and legal question that even FSF or > > > EFF or SFC does not provide clear answers. (And that probably > > > the level where the discussion should happen.) That’s not a > > > light topic and we should not rush in one definitive conclusion. > > > > > > Thank you for the rise of the concern some weeks ago. It appears > > > to me good that people had expressed their concerns. And still > > > does. Although I am reading there or overthere an aggressive > > > tone; useless. > > > > > > Again, people behind SWH are long-term free software activists > > > and be sure that they do not take this concern lightly. FYI, > > > people of SWH are in touch with some people from Guix to speak > > > about all that. > > > > That is a very good point actually and it is one I also raised in > > the email I sent. That we have been told there are some discussions > > but we haven't seen any results for over 6 months now. Hence me > > asking for anybody that has approached SH in an official Guix > > capacity to step forward. Otherwise as I said I can approach SH :) > > The relationship between SWH and Hugging Face is (IMO) off-topic for > the Guix mailing lists. I'm not surprised that the discussions are > happening elsewhere. Given that any code and package that is contributed to Guix goes to SWH and Hugging Face I would disagree. > > > 2. Ethical. > > > > > > If we speak about ethical concerns, we need to be very cautious. > > > We all share the same core of values about free software. Then > > > we all do not bound these values to the same point. Some of us > > > extend them to some topics, other restrict a bit. > > > > > > Here the issue is that other values than the ones about free > > > software are dragged in the picture to emit a position. That’s > > > where we need to be cautious because we need to embrace the > > > diversity and do not morally judge what is outside our free > > > software project. > > > > > > About SWH, FWIW, here is my moral reasoning; as you see, it is > > > far to be definitive. > > > > I agree that we probably won't find any definitive answer if LLMs > > are bad or not. But that is also not the question posed here tho. > > > > The question posed here was that *all* code that is sent from Guix > > to SH is automatically transfered without consent to be used in an > > LLM model. That is without said process being opt-in and without > > said process being transparent. > > I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. > > Transferring the code is (legally) fine, using the code is (legally) > fine, distributing the result is (I think) legally questionable. > > If your concern is the code being transferred to the LLM owners, IMO > that's already covered by the license of the code itself. As for what > the LLM owners do with the code, (again I am not a lawyer) it should > not make a difference if SWH gives them the code, they download it > from Guix's infrastructure or get it straight from upstream. > Redistributing the source code is allowed. Idk if you read the email that was sent to Greg in the other thread. Given that you replied there too I assume you did. So given this context I am repeating again that is not about legal and let me copy-past my reply to the legal argument: Quote: You seem to be arguing on a different thread or a point I never made. I didn't talk about licenses or legal/state rules before you mentioned them. What I have mentioned is that SH breaks our social rules and expectations by feeding all code into an algorithm that will endlessly output the same as original. I am not interested what the states or licenses/copyrights allow or don't allow in this case. What I care about is what we expect as a community when we submit a package/code to guix and if that violates our social rules and expectations. And from what I have seen and talked with people it does indeed. > > The second one could be solved by adding the disclaimer and making > > the changes to commit packages as a i said. It can also be done I > > was told by just stopping guix from uploading any new code to SH > > from any package. which I would also be in favor. > > The first one can be done with social pressure which is what the > > blogpost and the talking and potentially the not including SH into > > Guix go towards. > > > > Whether LLMs are ethical or not has nothing to do with the question > > posted above. Although personally I would push for not including > > LLMs unless under strict criteria of environmental and ethical > > sourcing. but that can come at a later time. > > > > I would also like SH to see why opt-in should be the default at the > > very least, and the process should be transparent to everybody > > putting code into SH. Archiving source code is a good cause. This > > is why I said to approach them in official Guix capacity :) > > One of our packages, dbxfs, left Github a while ago and continued > development on a different forge. They adjusted their README to > disallow hosting of their code on Github. Based on this restriction > we have labeled later versions of the software as non-free and have > not updated the package. IMO saying that source code cannot be > uploaded to SWH would fall into the same category. Good thing that is not what i suggested then. :) Regards, MSavoritias
