← Back to context

Comment by Orygin

1 day ago

My next project will be released under a GPL-like license with exactly this condition added. If you train a model on this code, the model must be open source & open weights

In light of the fact that the courts have found training an AI model to be fair use under US copyright law, it seems unlikely this condition will have any actual relevance to anyone. You're probably going to need to not publicly distribute your software at all, and make such a condition a term of the initial sale. Even there, it's probably going to be a long haul to get that to stick.

Not sure why the FSF or any other organization hasn't released a license like this years ago already.

  • Because it would violate freedom zero. Adding such terms to the GNU GPL would also mean that you can remove them, they would be considered "further restrictions" and can be removed (see section 7 of the GNU GPL version 3).

    • Freedom 0 is not violated. GPL includes restrictions for how you can use the software, yet it's still open source.

      You can do whatever you want with the software, BUT you must do a few things. For GPL it's keeping the license, distributing the source, etc. Why can't we have a different license with the same kind of restrictions, but also "Models trained on this licensed work must be open source".

      Edit: Plus the license would not be "GPL+restriction" but a new license altogether, which includes the requirements for models to be open.

      4 replies →