this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
419 points (89.8% liked)

linuxmemes

21251 readers
1538 users here now

Hint: :q!

Sister communities:

Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
    • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
    • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.

    • Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    founded 1 year ago
    MODERATORS
    poopsmith@lemmy.world
    zephyr@lemmy.world
    rtxn@lemmy.world
    419
    Valve made the right decision (lemmy.world)
    submitted 7 months ago by Waffelson@lemmy.world to c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world
    132 comments fedilink hide all child comments
     
    you are viewing a single comment's thread
    view the rest of the comments
    [–] onlinepersona@programming.dev 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

    My stance is just staunchly anti-commercial and I would rather see a non-commercial AI be allowed to use my text than a commercial one. Whether copyright law will reflect that is hitherto unknown - at least in the EU and the US, I think. Japan has already made a ruling that copyright doesn't exist for AI - or so I understand it. IANAL

    If AI reads your code, but the output is something entirely different, why would that be illegal? Isn’t that the same as a human reading something?

    That line of reasoning is logical, however copyright has never made any sense to me. "Likeness" can be copyrighted. Copying a copyrighted work is not allowed, but coming up with a solution that is nigh identical to another in a "clean room" is legal. Using old black and white mickey mouse is now public domain, but adding color suddenly makes it illegal. Learning something proprietary on the job and using it immediately at another employer is illegal but wait a year and it's legal even though the old employer never updated the solution.

    It makes no sense to me and doesn't seem logical at all 🤷 Laws are like scientific models: attempts at making sense of the world. Some are better than others.

    Anti Commercial AI thingyCC BY-NC-SA 4.0

    Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11

    #!/usr/bin/env nix-shell
#!nix-shell -i bash --packages xautomation xclip

sleep 0.2
(echo '
    spoiler Anti Commercial AI thingy [CC BY-NC-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11 ```bash' cat "$0" echo '``` :::') | xclip -selection clipboard xte "keydown Control_L" "key V" "keyup Control_L"

    :::

    [–] lemmeee@sh.itjust.works 3 points 7 months ago

    You are right, laws can be pretty crazy sometimes. Especially the copyright law. Thanks for explaining.