From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp0.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e224::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms13.migadu.com with LMTPS id cC4iEkm0cmbRFAEAqHPOHw:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 10:34:49 +0000 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:303:e224::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp0.migadu.com with LMTPS id cC4iEkm0cmbRFAEAqHPOHw (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 12:34:49 +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=XS7Whmqm; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=msavoritias.me (policy=none); 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" ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1718793289; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=GLzDMlklt9O2NjBO+F8EDTyXQPVzpamXClKkE4gK5sV/v8DX53lGzb7zlEgVF52LMxLIWR 4GRND5dYZy4eao1KibavLSOzbOm4AHQYJg62+5AutYXnMOMJmtYnr4Poe+GZOSN3x9qM6M UTW6uvsWRwoASka6RW3uxwK89ORudgs2upTPj2ZYtfbUdSq+6kiFcbgrmIzazbBQfE45PH z+mKycu3ZKT7oyC4iZZrG3pxZV/xY1dODRmrQ4rHGexMFAheqqRu2eSrxJQLJxphAGqBSn EdTJ8IYDKH40ZD/ANyDWJP86juJezVoZLuiaGxHN/RQKQHY55yHOeZ7B6aeu9A== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=none ("invalid DKIM record") header.d=msavoritias.me header.s=20210930 header.b=XS7Whmqm; dmarc=fail reason="SPF not aligned (relaxed)" header.from=msavoritias.me (policy=none); 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" ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1718793289; 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=VSYc9eVSnNAhxc/ACHOvQwHDU2vA4M2aOSwz16EJsAY=; b=I7hH7NV/ZRvkJ4fzl7SVPadKKrvriGey7olZVo4Tz63fqLMYqgnUD5QDKKQBRQHgh+l2JJ VIL0/0GfCSGQCMgpzVhJx2fukvX+zWi0VXNHVGIRaQlqpE9sQGuvEYtdppr/De7oNW1J/g 7avvhA9ifghDiLnYglE8E4y0MfjCJh5wG3Rst2Zwu/0bH2qfG7aLFMXuhMx0wWDi/XCpji 1A8DWHmBAPnu8zBybTWPiYV1c8RZGr2YFBFqNLyB+D0m/FkRcTaiZhiO+bP1fe6WkzX7dY vDjepr7hAN3khKMKjz41rjZi1oiQ4SApHg32zXAs+19127Z4sVSN9o6ZwCGMBA== 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 2640F1DE4C for ; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 12:34:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sJse2-00037g-Jz; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 06:34:26 -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 1sJse0-000379-Uy for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 06:34:24 -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 1sJsdy-0008OT-VF for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 06:34:24 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Mailerdaemon) with ESMTPSA id 39A081A888F2; Wed, 19 Jun 2024 11:34:17 +0100 (BST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=msavoritias.me; s=20210930; t=1718793260; h=from:subject:date:message-id:to:cc:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:references; bh=VSYc9eVSnNAhxc/ACHOvQwHDU2vA4M2aOSwz16EJsAY=; b=XS7WhmqmfsO2QCzYYDMsNVmDJzcn7r+Yez85iKEQT8roKAS9iMv7nbLDoq3S3J2aYuT1X9 kFkVwqiV5sfHrKeLPdZClgcTaE5zEu+u26OWQV8QBcnE1+hsMDMpfutrAg2rnGgKq7mD3I P2B920zVDGs5tcsbVCoNc8l0xB9k/nIjTuWy9q5flcygt0Q7s8P9a/Q6QTSD5i5uyXwYZQ 7WenkUypxnJm8zA8eNWA1C3dw928fe+o0JBUHW5TjN3pShYaNjqg3vL7X3Cyfa582ftOtq YKFlBxxsaH4mRx1CJ7nATsqpuQtoRymDtD/UaBs2k7f4aZtubqE1z0/HaWshng== Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2024 13:34:11 +0300 From: MSavoritias To: Efraim Flashner Cc: MSavoritias , Simon Tournier , Ian Eure , guix-devel@gnu.org Subject: Re: Next Steps For the Software Heritage Problem Message-ID: <20240619133411.43114fb9@fannys.me> In-Reply-To: References: <87a5jh74jf.fsf@gmail.com> <20240619121338.71b5f340@fannys.me> 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-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Country: US X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -4.76 X-Migadu-Scanner: mx12.migadu.com X-Spam-Score: -4.76 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 2640F1DE4C X-TUID: jPBqsnysO58A On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 12:54:30 +0300 Efraim Flashner wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 12:13:38PM +0300, MSavoritias wrote: > > On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 09:52:36 +0200 > > Simon Tournier wrote: > > =20 > > > Hi Ian, all, > > >=20 > > > On Tue, 18 Jun 2024 at 10:57, Ian Eure wrote: > > > > 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 and 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. =20 > >=20 > > 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 >=20 > The relationship between SWH and Hugging Face is (IMO) off-topic for > the Guix mailing lists. I'm not surprised that the discussions are > happening elsewhere. Given that any code and package that is contributed to Guix goes to SWH and Hugging Face I would disagree. > > > 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 need 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. =20 > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > 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. =20 >=20 > I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. >=20 > Transferring the code is (legally) fine, using the code is (legally) > fine, distributing the result is (I think) legally questionable. >=20 > If your concern is the code being transferred to the LLM owners, IMO > that's already covered by the license of the code itself. As for what > the LLM owners do with the code, (again I am not a lawyer) it should > not make a difference if SWH gives them the code, they download it > from Guix's infrastructure or get it straight from upstream. > Redistributing the source code is allowed. Idk if you read the email that was sent to Greg in the other thread. Given that you replied there too I assume you did. So given this context I am repeating again that is not about legal and let me copy-past my reply to the legal argument: Quote: You seem to be arguing on a different thread or a point I never made. I didn't talk about licenses or legal/state rules before you mentioned them. What I have mentioned is that SH breaks our social rules and expectations by feeding all code into an algorithm that will endlessly output the same as original. I am not interested what the states or licenses/copyrights allow or don't allow in this case. What I care about is what we expect as a community when we submit a package/code to guix and if that violates our social rules and expectations. And from what I have seen and talked with people it does indeed. > > 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. > >=20 > > 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. > >=20 > > 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 :) =20 >=20 > One of our packages, dbxfs, left Github a while ago and continued > development on a different forge. They adjusted their README to > disallow hosting of their code on Github. Based on this restriction > we have labeled later versions of the software as non-free and have > not updated the package. IMO saying that source code cannot be > uploaded to SWH would fall into the same category. Good thing that is not what i suggested then. :) Regards, MSavoritias