unfortunately i am now drafting an anti-LLM copyright policy
0 Boosts
0 Likes
This federated comment is not yet available here.
i really do not like the CLA. i do not trust stallman's stewardship of my copyright and i'm amazed anyone accepts this
i also already forked the AGPL to bedazzle it
this is so much harder than i thought it would be. this should just be a proposal made to CONTRIBUTING that requires the addition of the two statements asserting the contributor's copyright. add a check to a post-commit hook. then a patch to COPYING that rejects usage in LLMs (again mostly redundant, but best to be sure). done
i don't know if i can accept the FSF owning my copyright to any potential future contributions. i fervently believe copyright should not be legally transferable. that's the most evil misuse of copyright. why is the FSF using it. why have i never thought about this in my entire life
i don't understand how a fork can be legal if the FSF owns the copyright unless i get signoff from the FSF
the FSF doesn't even let you see the copyright assignment without doxing yourself. you have to email assign@gnu.org to get them to send you a document, after doxing yourself. that's the biggest red flag i've ever seen in my entire life. it's not something you do unless you want to provide different contract terms to different people. why is the FSF acting like corporate HR
i think a fork is fine because when the codebase is published (including via git—that is a publication) its COPYING file describes the terms under which it can be shared and modified, which is a contract users and dependees make with the FSF, who owns the copyright and therefore has the right to enact terms governing its usage, when the codebase is published to gnu dot org, a venue owned by the FSF
at this time i now want to set up a raspi hosting my code because a shared code host clearly has copyright implications
so i'm pretty sure the FSF is going to claim LLMs are an allowed usage. and this isn't going to be legally significant in a direct way, because the FSF is not a judge. but it is very significant indirectly, because it essentially adds an extra clause to the GPL license every contributor thought they were agreeing to, retroactively declaring their contributors' work as fair game for LLMs
