• 1 Post
  • 17 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 1st, 2023

help-circle


  • RE: Copyleft

    The idea of copyleft is that you give anyone the freedom to do anything with your work, with one essential restriction: they do the same for their changes, derivative works etc. Technically attribution doesn’t have to be part of a copyleft licence, but all copyleft licences I know have a requirement to preserve copyright info.

    And yes, it is popular in software (GPL, MPL, EPL), but for other types of works there is CC BY-SA 4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike). If you want to copyleft books, images, videos, other forms of text… this is the way to go, IMO.

    Some additional remarks, just to clarify:

    • Copyleft is not “giving up all copyright” - copyleft essentially “plays” the copyright system in a way that makes sure nobody is restricting access to or usage of one’s work. Using the rules of copyright against copyright, if you will.
    • In some jurisdictions, there is no such thing as “giving up all copyright” or “dedicating something to the public domain”. Best you can do, generally, is giving users all the same/relevant rights.
    • Most Creative Commons licences are not copyleft, only the ones with a ShareAlike (SA) clause. Some CC licences are also nonfree, meaning they don’t give you all the freedoms to do what you want with the work. The 2 possible nonfree clauses in CC licences are ND (no derivative works) and NC (no commercial use). NC can also be used together with a SA clause, making CC BY-SA (free) and CC BY-NC-SA (nonfree) the two CC copyleft licences.



  • Depends on what I’m making and which ecosystem it will be a part of. For libraries, I use the MIT license most of the time, although I’m probably going to switch to Apache 2.0 for future stuff. It’s a bit more robust and has a helpful licensing framework.

    When I make applications (and if possible), I tend to use (A)GPLv3. GPL sometimes doesn’t work though (for example, for my primary language, Clojure). I like the MPL 2.0 as a weak copyleft alternative.

    However, recently, I’ve been reconsidering the whole open source/free software ideology, especially the focus on granting unconditional freedoms. I think the view that engineers shouldn’t care what is done with their work is outdated and irresponsible, and it applies to software devs as well. So I’m keeping an eye on the development of alternative source models such as ethical source or licenses like the Anti-Capitalist License.












  • Dabei sind die Modelle (vor allem LLMs) bereits heute gut, dass sie bei echten Aufgaben teilweise mit einem Menschen mithalten können.

    Hast du das Video überhaupt geschaut? Ein zentraler Punkt des Videos ist doch genau das: für manche Dinge eignet sich diese Art von KI, für sehr vieles aber eben nicht. By design. Es ist absolut relevant, wie diese Modelle funktionieren.

    Anders gesagt:

    Saying that ChatGPT “can’t yet provide reliably correct answers to questions” is like saying your cat can’t yet provide reliable services as a paralegal. You can’t solve that task mismatch with a better cat