It clearly goes further than that. If that were the goal then wouldn't a clear copyright be sufficient? "all rights reserved, not to be used for training AI without explicit written permission."
It goes much further than simply prohibiting training. "Even indirect use of the software is forbidden. If, for example, a backend system were to include such software, it would be forbidden for AI to make requests to such a system." If one were to release a library under this license, and I wanted to use that library in publishing my website, AI would be forbidden to look at any content on my website. That's a much broader restriction than simply not allowing training on the source of your library. On Sat, 1 Nov 2025 at 21:32, Udhay Shankar N <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sat, 1 Nov 2025, 19:54 Charles Haynes, <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> This is fascinating to me. It's clear that the intent is to treat AI as >> adversarial and to try to hinder it. What's not as clear to me is why. The >> fascinating part is that it seems that some people take it as given that >> this is desirable, but haven't really articulated what the goal is. >> > > Really? The goal (or at least, one obvious goal) seems clear to me. > > "I do not want my work turned into training data without my consent." > > >
-- Silklist mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist
