Will FreeBSD adopt a No-AI policy or such?

LibreQuest said:
I wouldn't say that would be the case. It depends on the perspective of the user.

But I think there is also a legitimate liability concern due to licensing. Projects heavily incorporating "AI" output into their programs may be sued into oblivion at some point. And then they are simply not an option. I would assume, given the history of both NetBSD and FreeBSD, this outcome would be one to avoid. But I can't speculate on the matter. Just have to wait for the core team to release their policy.
Click to expand...
In the worst case scenario, the code belongs to the Public Domain. That's why we shouldn't just accept whatever is copy/pasted but heavily modify it after review.

LLM's are just another tool like compilers.
 
rbranco said:
In the worst case scenario, the code belongs to the Public Domain. That's why we shouldn't just accept whatever is copy/pasted but heavily modify it after review.

LLM's are just another tool like compilers.
Click to expand...
Worst case scenario is there is a judgement against "AI" companies for making verbatim copies of licensed projects implicating software projects using "AI" to write programs. And, as NetBSD has so wisely pointed out, that would mean that time would have to be spent removing "tainted" code from programs or face lawsuits.

To clarify, it wouldn't be an open source project winning in a lawsuit over copyright infringement. It would likely be a massive multi national corporation claiming ownership over a massive amount of open source projects code base.
 
LibreQuest said:
Worst case scenario is there is a judgement against "AI" companies for making verbatim copies of licensed projects implicating software projects using "AI" to write programs. And, as NetBSD has so wisely pointed out, that would mean that time would have to be spent removing "tainted" code from programs or face lawsuits.

To clarify, it wouldn't be an open source project winning in a lawsuit over copyright infringement. It would likely be a massive multi national corporation claiming ownership over a massive amount of open source projects code base.
Click to expand...
The chance of this happening is close to nil.

Why isn't NetBSD afraid of Oracle lawsuits over ZFS then?
 
rbranco said:
The chance of this happening is close to nil.

Why isn't NetBSD afraid of Oracle lawsuits over ZFS then?
Click to expand...
That's a good question for the NetBSD mailing list. I wouldn't have any insight on that matter.

But on the matter of the "AI" stuff, I would say it's likely to happen. The "AI" bots watermark their code. So it's not like it's public domain per se. It's clearly generated. The part I dislike is the fact that it's licensed work being used without conveying that to users. :/ But their is likely going to be a legal issue in the future.

On the likelihood of a massive legal issue I believe there is most certainly going to be many lawsuits filed. The majority of the current legal issues are on copyright with media it appears. But who knows. Perhaps you're right? But that still doesn't make the process ethical.
 
LibreQuest said:
That's a good question for the NetBSD mailing list. I wouldn't have any insight on that matter.

But on the matter of the "AI" stuff, I would say it's likely to happen. The "AI" bots watermark their code.
Click to expand...
This is not true.

LibreQuest said:
So it's not like it's public domain per se.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of Wikipedia but here are some pointers:

Artificial intelligence and copyright - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

LibreQuest said:
It's clearly generated. The part I dislike is the fact that it's licensed work being used without conveying that to users. :/ But their is likely going to be a legal issue in the future.

On the likelihood of a massive legal issue I believe there is most certainly going to be many lawsuits filed. The majority of the current legal issues are on copyright with media it appears. But who knows. Perhaps you're right? But that still doesn't make the process ethical.
Click to expand...
They won't go after NetBSD. Lawsuits are all about money.
 
rbranco said:
This is not true.



I'm not a fan of Wikipedia but here are some pointers:

Artificial intelligence and copyright - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org


They won't go after NetBSD. Lawsuits are all about money.
Click to expand...
One clear (at least to me) fact is that if any GPL'ed material is included in any of "training data" of specific LLMs, the whole bunch of the LLMs and anything included in any of outputs "generated" SHALL covered (infected!) by GPL, even if other "proprietary", "patented", "top secret of governments/military forces or private info of presidents", "permissively licensed like BSD" or "public domain" works are also included. There CANNOT be any exceptions as of the nature of GPL.

This is why I object to use AI/LLM generated "codes" to be included, but NOT objecting to use AI/LLM limited for finding bugs.

Asking "why this is vulnerable?" would be OK, but asking "then, how can we fix it?" is NO-GO, unless the LLM is clearly stating and validated that no BSD-incompatibully licensed (or already in public domain state) material are used to train it.
 
T-Aoki said:
One clear (at least to me) fact is that if any GPL'ed material is included in any of "training data" of specific LLMs, the whole bunch of the LLMs and anything included in any of outputs "generated" SHALL covered (infected!) by GPL, even if other "proprietary", "patented", "top secret of governments/military forces or private info of presidents", "permissively licensed like BSD" or "public domain" works are also included. There CANNOT be any exceptions as of the nature of GPL.

This is why I object to use AI/LLM generated "codes" to be included, but NOT objecting to use AI/LLM limited for finding bugs.

Asking "why this is vulnerable?" would be OK, but asking "then, how can we fix it?" is NO-GO, unless the LLM is clearly stating and validated that no BSD-incompatibully licensed (or already in public domain state) material are used to train it.
Click to expand...
GPL code in training doesn't make any generated code GPL. Good luck to the FSF arguing that in court, though IANAL.

GPL infection is done via linking and libraries may contain the linking exception or use the LGPL.
 
Well, this is a good topic. The only thing we don't see is the policy from the core team.

"The suspense is terrible, I hope it'll last."
The wise words of Willy Wonka.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top