"Slightly immature." You make it sound like his biggest sin is farting in an elevator and laughing about it.
Would you tolerate the sort of behavior Musk exhibits from your own children? (I'm assuming you are fully aware of all the unlawful, deceitful, and morally questionable acts he has taken throughout his life.)
The BSD license (which is the one at issue here) does not explicitly permit the licensee to change the license terms of covered software upon redistribution. Perhaps it would be permitted under an expansive interpretation, but under a narrow reading, it might not be. The default rule, however, is that all rights not granted by license remain with the owner.
As you said, the question has never been litigated or settled.
I would agree with you but for the author’s attempt to publish it under a new license. I think they can either claim it’s a new work (in which case it’s public domain) or claim it’s a derivative work (in which case I don’t think they can change the license).
I imagine a court would call it a derivative work if tested.
A comic book is a physical object. This analogy doesn’t hold. When you give a comic book to someone, you’re only transferring the copy and its implied license that carries with it. You can set the terms of the physical object, but you can’t change the license of the content within it.
Suppose you get a license to view a copy of a work (streaming or a paid subscription to a newspaper site). Your permission to consume the media begins and ends with the license terms, which allow you to view the work (and, since it’s necessary, to make a transient copy) during the period of the subscription. You don’t get to relicense it to someone else under those terms.
IAAL (not legal advice) and I’m not sure the issue is settled.
The BSD license only explicitly permits the author “to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for any purpose, without fee, and without a written agreement.”
By default, the owner of a protected work retains all rights not conveyed to someone else. Changing the license isn’t one of the enumerated activities, and so I think there’s a case to be made that it’s not permitted.
Now if the author wants to claim it’s a new work, as opposed to a modification (which opens up a big bag of issues by itself because this was AI-authored), then the author can license it however they see fit.
You might be right, if it is a derivative work and not a new one. There’s some evidence that the authors consider it a new one because they’re attempting to change its license.
The BSD license doesn’t explicitly convey the right to create derivative works but it does convey the right to “modify” the software. (They seem similar but “modify” is a narrower verb.) So is this a modification? A derivative work? A new work entirely? If it shares no code with the work from which it was derived, things are more complex than it may seem (and it no longer fits the “compressed video” analogy very well).
I’ll interpret this circular answer as “no impact whatsoever upon me personally, or upon society in a way that I can concretely identify.”
This argument seems to otherwise come down to “people are adding nuance to a word that I believe to be very clear and simple, this change makes me uncomfortable, and I’m going to die on this hill to keep things the way they used to be!”
I’d also like to remind you that neither disagreement nor social pressure is censorship—even if you ultimately succumb to that social pressure or feel a chilling effect. (Are you “censored” if people throw tomatoes at you after you call a Black person the n-word?) Censorship is when the government threatens your life, liberty, or property if you express yourself in a certain way.
I thought we were talking about what LLMs and people say, not something the Government is doing. You don’t have to agree with either of them.
I’m still very curious as to what concrete—not theoretical—impact the issue of gender attribution has on society or on you personally. I’d love to hear it in your own words as opposed to some literary reference.
“Terrifying”? Really? What frightening consequences do you believe will result? What will the impact be to society—and to you personally—if some LLM happens to say this?
By that logic, any reduction in punishment for a crime is "pro crime." On the contrary, reducing the maximum fine for speeding is not "pro speeding," and eliminating the death penalty for murder is not "pro murder."
I think you're watching the news too much, or are perhaps paying too much attention to how the right characterizes the left. It distorts reality. Time to touch grass.
People on the left aren't generally against ICE and immigration enforcement per se - they're against the heavy-handed techniques they've been applying recently. ICE and its predecessor (Border Patrol) have been left alone to do their jobs discreetly for decades. It was only when they started showing up with a dramatic, overbearing, and excessively forceful presence that the left started complaining.
These are not left-wing values. You're being incredibly reductive. Only a few nut jobs at the far left wing support some of these things, and even then, not all of them. Nobody is "for" crime.
Nothing I say should be construed as legal advice. I encourage you to seek licensed counsel in your jurisdiction if you need legal advice.
[ my public key: https://keybase.io/otterley; my proof: https://keybase.io/otterley/sigs/ciQxqIniqjt0qP_lKGryssgeBpYEjANIzawbvj_1Yt4 ]