@thatbrickster@shitposter.world I'm not sure what you mean. The FSF and free software movement ideals are based on the culture around computer science from the 1950s when almost all software being developed was free software. When software was not seen as a commodity (unlike the hardware) but instead mostly treated as an academic work of research under the principles of cooperation.
Back then it was normal even commercial companies, such as IBM, to include the source code of their programs with the hardware purchase, so the user can properly use the machine for their own purpose.
The freedoms and ideals as defined by the FSF are a direct continuation of this. This is not a 10 year old standard, but a almost 70 year old one.
+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
@thatbrickster @SuperDicq everyone else is "billions of flies can't be wrong, eat more shit" 
honestly, most of the software i use which ALSO is reliable exists for >20 years now. if FSF keeps _this_ software free and working, i'm happy - most of the modern software isn't salvageable anyway.
I don't like single (1) organisations having a monopoly on the definition of things. I don't think the FSF should be the only ones who can define 'freedom' nor do I think they are above criticism.
@SuperDicq
@thatbrickster @SuperDicq i believe there certainly are enough organizations in this area who try to define "freedom".
only they tend to define it as "free as in free beer" like the whole permissive license crowd. or "freedom until you wrongthink", like FSFE who'd seem to rather have some kind of "ethical license".
FSF and RMS are a clear cut case of exceptionalism because most people (including myself) couldn't come up with something which ONLY protects freedom without additional limitations.
@lain @SuperDicq @thatbrickster
> that only get enforced via copyright law.
i'd say that a license can exist without copyright law as it's a private contract. the way GPL is written it is creating an exemption of copyright, because copyright law exists - it would be useless otherwise :)
if these laws wouldn't exist, you still could either do a license as private contract just for using the software (the ususal EULA) or something like GPL allowing for more freedom.
@lain@lain.com @bonifartius@qoto.org @SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo @thatbrickster@shitposter.world It would be hilarious if someone leaks (read opens) openais models before their 'open source' model release. so much for their fair use argument which should apply to them lol
Who in the right mind would think they don't fall under copyright? If LLM uses some work as input then the result and the models are clearly derivative works. Any transformation of works results in derivative work with LLM being only one of possible means to. "Fair use" and other special cases can apply too but LLM doesn't automatically imply fair use.
@loonycyborg@fediverse.wesnoth.org @lain@lain.com @bonifartius@qoto.org @thatbrickster@shitposter.world
Who in the right mind would think they don't fall under copyright?
This is the product of current "AI" marketing machine hype boom.They have successfully managed to deceive all of the non-tech people in power that "AI" is something different than just a turing machine which takes input and produces output.
Many people, due to lack of critical thinking skills, unfortunately believe machine learning models have some sort of actual intelligence or sentience comparable to humans.
So they make fair use exceptions for them as if machine learning model output is somehow comparable to a human making an original work while simply being inspired by another work.
In this case it's really hard to find someone who can be defined as an author, yes.
@lain @SuperDicq @thatbrickster i'm not a lawer but shouldn't including a term that giving away the software applies the same license be enough?
you get the software. you give it to me for free, without informing me about the license. still, as the license stated distribution _must always_ happen under the same terms the license still applies and i get in trouble, only that i could sue you for the damages the original producer sues me
for, as i received the software under the false assumption it wasn't licensed this way.
i've been spending most my life, living in a lolberts paradise 🎶
@lain @SuperDicq @thatbrickster it's moot to discuss this as it's a fictional world :) i believe usually one enters a contract by _doing something_ as well, not only signing something. i accept the software you offere to me. thus a contract is entered.
the difference would be that private contract law only binds the two parties that actually signed the contract. if microsoft makes a contract with that i can not give away their software for free, that won't bind you if i give it to you for free anyway. ms might sue me for damages but you can keep giving away the software for free once its out. same for sources.