Aren't they claiming that it's fair use? IANAL, but wouldn't that make the licence irrelevant if training AI/ML models was found to be fair use? And if not, it's a licence violation anyway?
It will be difficult to claim fair use if training AI model is explicitly mentioned in the license, I think.
Currently GPL says:
> To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work
in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an
exact copy. The resulting work is called a "modified version" of the
earlier work or a work "based on" the earlier work.
> A "covered work" means either the unmodified Program or a work based
If in addition it would say something like "Generative AI models trained on the program source code as well as the text produced with such models is also a work "based on" the Program", then there will be little room for a fair use claim, I think.
> It will be difficult to claim fair use if training AI model is explicitly mentioned in the license, I think
Fair use is a statutory right (codifying what courts had 0reviously found to be an aspect of Constitutional free expression rights limiting the copyright power) that limits the exclusive rights of copyright owners. It can't be reduced in scope by license terms, because it deals with what the owner has no right to control in the first place.
(You may be confusing “fair use” with “implied license”, and, yes, explicit license terms would be a powerful argument against an implied license argument.)
My impression, they claim the fair use only because there is no other ground for ML training on GPL code. The license only describes other uses of the code, so the first question is on what grounds Open AI uses the code at all. And the only thing OpenAI comes with is the fair use.
ML training does not fall under free expression or similar basic rights, I think. Only because it looks too restrictive to forbid scanning the code which is publicly available for people to read, and the license itself does not mention such use, the fair use may be considered as some kind of justification.
I, of course, can be mistaken. Especially that I didn't study this subject deeply.
Also, for authors who are against the ML training on their GPL code, it's better to prove it violates even the current GPL version, rather than just introduce a modification to the license. Because new license will only cover new code, while old versions are already available under the old license.
On the other hand, such an amendment to the license will not be harmful, even if later proven to be useless. And it will clearly state the copyright holder's position regarding the ML training, instead of some subtle reasoning we should apply currently.
Some people may want an opposite amendment to their license - ML training does not produce a "work based on the Program" and can be freely performed by anyone.
To me, that's like saying there would be little room for a fair use claim for news reporting/parody/[insert legitimate fair use here] if the licence expressly forbids it. IANAL though.
IANAL either, but the license still applies to the end-user (the person who trained the AI) so it would seem like it would add at least 1 non-trivial license violation for that user?
Edit: I googled "fair use copyright US" and have now decided that US copyright law is stupid.
> I googled "fair use copyright US" and have now decided that US copyright law is stupid.
Fair use helps artists, journalists, and (indirectly) the general public. It prevents censorship of critical or opposing views, among a lot of other uses that are beneficial to society (see sibling comment). US copyright law is backwards in a lot of ways but this isn't one of them.
> Edit: I googled "fair use copyright US" and have now decided that US copyright law is stupid.
Don't be like that. Fair use is what allowed VCRs to continue existing, what allows Google Images and Books to exist, what allows the development of emulators... I could go on.
