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

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 10:54:07 +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> [2021-07-24 10:33]:
> > > 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
> 
> I have never in my life said so, you please stop with it.

Please re-read your postings.  They say otherwise.  I realize that you
didn't intend that, but that's how your words sound, here and
elsewhere.  If you want to avoid such interpretation, please take
great care to tone down your categorical statements, use qualifiers
like IMO and AFAIK and "I think", and generally make sure your words
say that's your opinion, not an absolute truth, let alone something
the GNU project decided to do or is doing.

> For example when there is recommendation of proprietary software I
> will say that GNU project does not endorse such.

Please consider adding "AFAIK" or somesuch, otherwise this sounds like
you are speaking for the project.

> I was interested to find out how is legality solved when re-using the
> code generated by AI. Nothing else beyond that. And I have found
> references and made conclusions. 

And I challenged your conclusions.  Nothing beyond that.

> > That's not what the above document concludes.  Quote:
> 
> My conclusions are not what document conclude. I never said so.

You didn't say otherwise, either.  Someone who didn't have time to
read the document could think that it's what the document concluded.
That's why I posted the actual quotation, so that people could draw
their own conclusions, or decide they do want to read the document
itself.

> The document is related exclusively to US jurisdiction and its final
> determination is vague. It is their proposal, and not a court
> decision. They have openly said that they are financially strong
> enough and will try to defend any cases by using "fair use" doctrine
> in the US.

All true, but the same can be said about all the other posts and blogs
you quoted.  Which leaves us none the wiser about the problem.  We
still need to assess the original facts and data and make our own
conclusions.  I did, and my conclusions are starkly different from
yours.

> Everything from that document relates to US jurisdiction only. It is
> one-sided thus biased document, clearly opposing the views of many GPL
> authors. 
> 
> It is the corporations defense argument for ripping off the GPL
> software. They found the way and wish to play on that card. 
> 
> It is document of conflict, not document of friendship or
> collaboration.  It is document of one-sidede defense, not a document
> that contributes to free software. 
> 
> It is document that defend proprietary software, not document that
> fosters free software.
> 
> Thus it does not resolve anything in the community. It serves to one
> party only.

And yet you draw conclusions from it about how GNU and Emacs should
behave about this technology?  How does that make sense?

> > > Conclusion as of 2021-07-24 is that authors cannot be sure as there
> > > are legal uncertainties.
> > 
> > Those are your personal conclusions.
> 
> Personal definitely, but not as the only one with the same opinion,

How does that make any difference?  Should GNU and Emacs take the fact
that several people expressed this opinion as meaning it is the truth
for our purposes?  Especially since some (perhaps many) of them are
driven by motivation that is explicitly anti-Free Software?

> which should be clear from references which left probably unread.

Please don't assume I didn't read those references.  You have no basis
for making such nasty assumptions about me, let alone expressing them
publicly here.

> Legality of free software on the planet was ensured by the GPL
> license. Maybe the license was never planned to be international, but
> it does function well internationally. 
> 
> Legality of AI generated code and "free use" doctrine in the US is at
> this point of development yet far from functioning well
> internationally. 

Which, to me, says that we should carefully examine this issue by
ourselves, not draw any premature conclusions from the hoop-la out
there.