Elektrine lite

← Feed

@cwebber@social.coop

Post #2900946

2026-04-18 14:12 UTC

@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @ossguy@fedi.copyleft.org @richardfontana@mastodon.social Except, I actually believe this scenario isn't legally viable. And it's easier to understand if we scale back to the middle case. Let's now look at the LLM trained on CC0 and CC BY. Because it's the BY aspect that makes everything complicated. There is *NO WAY* in current LLM technology, nor I believe from studying how neural networks work, any viable computationally performant LLM, that they can track provenance. The BY clause cannot be upheld. This isn't a theoretical concern for me; someone built another vibecoded Scheme-to-WASM-GC compiler that looks an awful lot like Spritely's own Hoot compiler in places. They didn't attribute us. They probably didn't know. But like many FOSS licenses, Apache v2 does require certain levels of attribution to be upheld. Most FOSS projects do. You can't uphold the CC BY requirement, as far as I can tell.

Replies (1)

  • @cwebber@social.coop 2026-04-18 14:14

    @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @ossguy@fedi.copyleft.org @richardfontana@mastodon.social Now here is a counter-argument: how do people attribute Wikipedia? They generally just attribute Wikipedia! And people seem to be mostly fine with this. It feels fine, when you were a contributor to the Wikipedia project. It feels a lot less fine when you are a contributor to a specific project, to have everything just sucked up into "the generic LLM". Claude did it! Claude did it all by itself.

    Open ##2900947