@musicmatze Hmm, I think prohibiting certain use cases (like analysis) is hard to get right. I.e. I think something like this would often lead you to restrict things you actually want to allow or allow things you really want to restrict.
Maybe a copyright reform is needed that defines how the copyright of input data affects the copyright of machine-generated outputs? Though that also opens a whole other can of worms ...
@musicmatze If we ever get to the point where machines can generate content on a human level, basically the whole concept of copyright breaks down. Just like the concept of capitalism will, if a large part of the labor force can be replaced by machines without simultaneously generating sufficient replacement jobs.
@musicmatze Given that we don't reach a plateau w.r.t AI research soon, I think it's going to be interesting to see how our legal systems/our societies will adapt to advances in AI that raise similar issues.
@musicmatze I have quite some code under GPL but also a lot under MIT. I think the most important part of these licenses is the "no warranty" part. The attribution stuff is nice to have. But really, what would I do against some company using my code in their proprietary binary-only commercial software? How would I even know they are using it? For them it's not legal, but well I actually expect this to happen.
@musicmatze I think it is more important to build something useful and am against more restrictive licenses. Also, I don't think any snippet copilot takes from my code is original to my software.
This Mastodon instance is for people interested in technology. Discussions aren't limited to technology, because tech folks shouldn't be limited to technology either!