From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:4876::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms13.migadu.com with LMTPS id AKjMA4+hcma/fQAAqHPOHw:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 09:14:55 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:4876::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0.migadu.com with LMTPS id AKjMA4+hcma/fQAAqHPOHw (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 11:14:55 +0200 X-Envelope-To: larch@yhetil.org Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none ("invalid DKIM record") header.d=msavoritias.me header.s=20210930 header.b="aQKGY//X"; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=msavoritias.me (policy=none) ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1718788495; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=0H09HW/tA6spgXm5jIKhu4y4iv90Ue+Cdgwh/7VHemk=; b=M+KJhmEIzRau3X7GUZuCjEB0tK5ocpSROgyKR24IKR2BMKDCd8VZ2/7vrNZvdbDLrVN7SY TXyi6hj+nhvRGkjT2O0QodiibDJFQxLl+nvXhS+kfKOZcGuftTcge7Tc/+2+NXL8cPybDY g+SwplJOoBQf9VAtadSjstV1KWMzoXKqsKaTKnl9ps2f5THY/WKTTkuqz1UhfCBKEwdah4 uJBjFzzvFVWUaBx61Q2HJCgJT8Ww+DbWdfG8dYiydT1mCxirBydj7WP931ZtbuF+5fjm4S +cSk2W0tPA8lpsQgqKAz/jQqe9JWXk/CuRx7gqc72tPMAr1ViORTVX7OQHSnXA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none ("invalid DKIM record") header.d=msavoritias.me header.s=20210930 header.b="aQKGY//X"; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=msavoritias.me (policy=none) ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1718788495; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=rDuXoUmG4OukyH1oXdcFU5pdY/aDzIXQzkdDKI9f45UONQCFZZnC54JUnL9gx6Hupmq02k +LnWuy8fcplA3pOzQDPezW/IUjKFGF8m0WQWtpat0OEdKTh6d6anx0XXqvmtPGbgvNAjSN MKo8Gp0zT07MxxFmSOB1D/KeofU+HdAvSypa+o8cG3wlBjNw6pJvCaP9YgifreH4p1fYyx DpVsuilveBQWAla8hmKlTopMQNvXtTZma3lHykPjdQE4iS1JinSizD8BpF/2CutaFzJyS8 16T2l7PFEy/dJ5E6daYhYcP2FT4SLpDBBWldFdQLll1Gxaz0ga41UxYyyjP+Ng== Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F79E6825F for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 11:14:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sJrOE-0002rw-Gu; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 05:14:02 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sJrOC-0002rL-FS for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 05:14:00 -0400 Received: from mail.webarch.email ([81.95.52.48]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sJrOA-0003QH-K2 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 05:14:00 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id 5F35F1A82E0F; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 10:13:45 +0100 (BST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=msavoritias.me; s=20210930; t=1718788429; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references; bh=0H09HW/tA6spgXm5jIKhu4y4iv90Ue+Cdgwh/7VHemk=; b=aQKGY//XauA70kXIONpC6cag4uH8ikhJ/nnvLRpK1qvUGAzIY+6Xe1v8OyHCqWi54jzGiW ITvI3HaXsAvdqqx+CSvsXtv8s5HzCxNARpnKF8Jw0hLORQT+tGvF9ptgA2LFBHU6eLPRyj RE7vfUolOHzZHxr42kdk7BLLc9mwlpMgJ58SflChz5rDcCD6B4j0lMike5B41tDQqmeTsA DfNW2+bB7gM0ZsdfKbj/aDykkNEGStUQBkSepVp4P4u8slUHsTrGPROHx7X64BpUtIUREr 1jXzmOA0wGvsLtDmluduBXCguZ680+wBLcLgzfr214RR0ybAmDRe5R/EQlArtw== Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 12:13:38 +0300 From: MSavoritias To: Simon Tournier Cc: Ian Eure , guix-devel@gnu.org Subject: Re: Next Steps For the Software Heritage Problem Message-ID: <20240619121338.71b5f340@fannys.me> In-Reply-To: <87a5jh74jf.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87a5jh74jf.fsf@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.1 (GTK 3.24.41; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Last-TLS-Session-Version: TLSv1.3 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=81.95.52.48; envelope-from=email@msavoritias.me; helo=mail.webarch.email X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org X-Migadu-Country: US X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Spam-Score: -1.08 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 9F79E6825F X-Migadu-Scanner: mx10.migadu.com X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -1.08 X-TUID: 4VVX40z4SC0z On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 09:52:36 +0200 Simon Tournier wrote: > Hi Ian, all, >=20 > On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 at 10:57, Ian Eure wrote: >=20 > > Guix is continuing to partner with SWH in spite of their continued=20 > > support of these violations. =20 >=20 > Quickly because I am in the middle of a busy day. :-) Hey Simon, >=20 > I think that LLM asks ethical and legal question that even FSF or EFF > or SFC does not provide clear answers. (And that probably the level > where the discussion should happen.) That=E2=80=99s not a light topic an= d we > should not rush in one definitive conclusion. >=20 > Thank you for the rise of the concern some weeks ago. It appears to > me good that people had expressed their concerns. And still does. > Although I am reading there or overthere an aggressive tone; useless. >=20 > Again, people behind SWH are long-term free software activists and be > sure that they do not take this concern lightly. FYI, people of SWH > are in touch with some people from Guix to speak about all that. That is a very good point actually and it is one I also raised in the email I sent. That we have been told there are some discussions but we haven't seen any results for over 6 months now. Hence me asking for anybody that has approached SH in an official Guix capacity to step forward. Otherwise as I said I can approach SH :) >=20 > 1. Legal. >=20 > These license violations are your interpretation of the law and to my > knowledge nothing have been in Court, yet. >=20 > Today, it does not really matter if we (or I) share this opinion. > Because for now, it=E2=80=99s just an opinion. >=20 > However, no one is a lawyer here and drawing a clear line is not > simple. >=20 > Thus, FWIW, I would not jump in hard conclusions based on my own > opinion because today I am not confidant enough to emit a definitive > legal position. >=20 That is fair, I agree that copyright wise and legal/state wise the answer is not clear at all. And I don't think anybody in this mailing list can decidely answer that as you said. > 2. Ethical. >=20 > If we speak about ethical concerns, we need to be very cautious. We > all share the same core of values about free software. Then we all > do not bound these values to the same point. Some of us extend them > to some topics, other restrict a bit. >=20 > Here the issue is that other values than the ones about free software > are dragged in the picture to emit a position. That=E2=80=99s where we n= eed > to be cautious because we need to embrace the diversity and do not > morally judge what is outside our free software project. >=20 > About SWH, FWIW, here is my moral reasoning; as you see, it is far to > be definitive. I agree that we probably won't find any definitive answer if LLMs are bad or not. But that is also not the question posed here tho. The question posed here was that *all* code that is sent from Guix to SH is automatically transfered without consent to be used in an LLM model. That is without said process being opt-in and without said process being transparent. The second one could be solved by adding the disclaimer and making the changes to commit packages as a i said. It can also be done I was told by just stopping guix from uploading any new code to SH from any package. which I would also be in favor. The first one can be done with social pressure which is what the blogpost and the talking and potentially the not including SH into Guix go towards. Whether LLMs are ethical or not has nothing to do with the question posted above. Although personally I would push for not including LLMs unless under strict criteria of environmental and ethical sourcing. but that can come at a later time. I would also like SH to see why opt-in should be the default at the very least, and the process should be transparent to everybody putting code into SH. Archiving source code is a good cause. This is why I said to approach them in official Guix capacity :) MSavoritias