Re: Help building Pen.el (GPT for emacs)

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 06:07:18 +0300
> From: Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support>
> Cc: mullikine@gmail.com, stefan@marxist.se, emacs-tangents@gnu.org,
>   rms@gnu.org
> 
> * Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> [2021-07-23 22:34]:
> > > Here are references disputing how "it cannot be true":
> > 
> > You take everything you read in these blogs for granted?  Did you
> > actually see the original code which these allude to?
> 
> In case of Copilot, Github admits:
> https://docs.github.com/en/github/copilot/research-recitation

Yes, and there are cases of real code stealing out there.  The only
thing that proves is that some mistaken or dishonest operators can do
this.

> > > I would appreciate if you find solution to that or stay on that
> > > subject, as if I am wrong or right is not relevant, what I wish is to
> > > have assurance that it is free software. Prove me wrong by providing
> > > exact references in not only on country's law but also other
> > > countries' laws, the lows that make it legal, or how otherwise the
> > > legality of such code is justified and how users may get free
> > > software.
> > 
> > I'm sorry, but I don't work for you.  If you have problems with using
> > code from these services, then the onus is on you to do the research
> > and make up your own mind.  The discussion here is not about the code
> > these services give their users, it's whether and how Emacs can make
> > use of those services.  Emacs allows the user to write proprietary
> > code, and there's no legal issues when the user does that.  Emacs also
> > allows the user to copy someone else's code without permission, and
> > that's not a problem for Emacs when the user does that.
> 
> If you don't wish to correspond, don't, you are free. 
> 
> I have never said nor implied "you work for me" and I cannot see how
> is that relevant to the question.

You consistently take the stance that implies, and many times
explicitly states, that (a) you represent the views of the GNU
project, and (b) the GNU project should or should not do this and
that.  Then, when people like me object, you demand that they prove
something to you, or else.  But no one here is under any obligation of
proving anything to you, and your views and opinions (which are quite
radical, I must say) are your own and no one else's.  They are your
own responsibility, and if you want them to be proven or dis-proven,
you should do that yourself.

> If you participate in discussion and respond to my question relating
> to licensing compliance, then provide a reference justifying its
> legality. Or simply say you don't have such. Your employment is not
> subject of my question nor relevant.

I could ask you to do the same.  You never provided any reference
justifying the legality, just a lot of blogs that spread FUD (whose
motivation, which many times is struggle against Free Software, I
described in my previous message).  If you demand something of your
correspondents, please live up to the same high standards, or stop
demanding that others do.  Quoting a random selection of blog postings
is NOT research and does NOT justify anything, except that the issue
is being "discussed" by some people.  It doesn't even mean that those
discussions are serious, let alone that whoever posts those opinions
doesn't have an agenda.

> I am not user of proprietary software and I don't consider options of
> writing proprietary software. Neither I am participating in discussion
> to foster ideas of creation of proprietary software.
> 
> I am free software user and for that specific case I am interested how
> the licensing issue is solved.

You are free to do whatever you like in your work; that is your
prerogative and no one else's.  But here we discuss what the Emacs
project should or should not do about this technology, not your
private decisions.

> 2. OpenAI_RFC-84-FR-58141.pdf
> https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/OpenAI_RFC-84-FR-58141.pdf
> 
> Conclusions are:
> 
> - legal justifications exists for US jurisdiction as the companies
>   providing the AI are strong enough to find their ways, they are
>   playing on the card as given in references above; as somebody
>   already said, I doubt they would use "fair use" doctrine if the AI
>   would be trained on proprietary software such as Windows;
> 
> - conflict is serious and it is out there among the people and remains
>   unsolved; AI has been trained on GPL and other free software and is
>   used by corporations to generate new code without attributions;
>   people complain that it is misuse of intentions of authors; 
> 
> - overall international legal situation is thus unclear, especially
>   considering that free software spans the whole world, not just the
>   US jurisdiction, as what may work within US is not same among all
>   jurisdictions;

That's not what the above document concludes.  Quote:

  Conclusion

  We submit that:

  I. Under current law, training AI systems constitutes fair use.

  II. Policy considerations underlying fair use doctrine support the
  finding that training AI systems constitute fair use.

  III. Nevertheless, legal uncertainty on the copyright implications
  of training AI systems imposes substantial costs on AI developers
  and so should be authoritatively resolved.

> Conclusion as of 2021-07-24 is that authors cannot be sure as there
> are legal uncertainties.

Those are your personal conclusions.  They don't follow, and sometimes
directly contradict, the references you yourself posted (sometimes so
much so that I wonder whether we really read the same text).  My
opinions differ substantially, for the reasons I explained above and
in other messages.

(Full disclosure: part of my daytime job is development of
sophisticated AI-based algorithms that use machine learning
technologies for various practical purposes, including analysis of
"natural language" text.)