Post #2900942
2026-04-18 14:01 UTC
However, it's not actually the laundering angle I am concerned with here entirely, it's whether we're turning FOSS codebases into potential legal toxic waste dumps that we will have a hell of a time cleaning up later.
The previous Conservancy post, which @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org linked upthread, indicates that Conservancy does indeed consider the matter unsettled.
Current LLMs wouldn't "default to copyleft", since they also include all-rights-reserved mixed in there. If the result of output of these systems is a slurry of inputs which carry their licensing somehow, their default licensing output situation is one of a hazard.
I note that @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org and @ossguy@fedi.copyleft.org seem to be hinting at hoping a "copyleft based LLM" with all-copyleft output it a winning scenario. I'm going to state plainly: I believe that's an impossible outcome.
@richardfontana@mastodon.social
Replies (1)
-
@cwebber@social.coop 2026-04-18 14:03
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @ossguy@fedi.copyleft.org @richardfontana@mastodon.social Rather than focus on the GPL, let's choose a different copyleft license. In fact, let's choose a gradient of licenses. - CC0's public domain declaration w/ minimal fallback license - CC BY - CC BY-SA Imagine for a moment an LLM trained entirely on the above three licenses, and then one that's CC BY and CC0, and then one that's just CC0. Let's look at both extremes and then we'll find out the real dangers come from observing the middle.