From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.tangents Subject: Re: Help building Pen.el (GPT for emacs) Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 10:32:51 +0300 Message-ID: <8335s4180s.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83lf642jeh.fsf@gnu.org> <83r1fp1es9.fsf@gnu.org> <83o8at1c63.fsf@gnu.org> <83im1025b7.fsf@gnu.org> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="24815"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: stefan@marxist.se, emacs-tangents@gnu.org, mullikine@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org To: Jean Louis Original-X-From: emacs-tangents-bounces+get-emacs-tangents=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Jul 24 09:33:27 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: get-emacs-tangents@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1m7CA2-0006Hk-Nt for get-emacs-tangents@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 09:33:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:52126 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m7CA0-0006Oq-JC for get-emacs-tangents@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 03:33:24 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:52932) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m7C9r-0006Og-RT for emacs-tangents@gnu.org; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 03:33:15 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:33186) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m7C9r-0001Zq-2E; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 03:33:15 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:3013 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1m7C9j-0005gX-6J; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 03:33:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: (message from Jean Louis on Sat, 24 Jul 2021 06:07:18 +0300) X-BeenThere: emacs-tangents@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Emacs news and miscellaneous discussions outside the scope of other Emacs mailing lists List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-tangents-bounces+get-emacs-tangents=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-tangents" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.tangents:677 Archived-At: > Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 06:07:18 +0300 > From: Jean Louis > Cc: mullikine@gmail.com, stefan@marxist.se, emacs-tangents@gnu.org, > rms@gnu.org > > * Eli Zaretskii [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.)