[License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 117, Issue 2

Thu Apr 20 22:08:41 UTC 2023

Emanuele,

Please move this conversation to license-discuss
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
because at this point the conversation is off-topic for this group.

And, a general suggestion, if you reply to a Digest, change the subject and
remove the text of the digest.

Thanks,
Stef

On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 3:02 PM Emanuele D. <deboni.emanuele at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hello there,
>
> First of all thanks for replying, Your replies are giving me a lot of
> useful knowledge
> and insights on how to eventually work on this failing attempt. I will
> answer as following:
>
> ———
>
> Dear* @mirabilos,*
>
> I call absolute, utter BULLSHIT on this.
>
>
> The idea, whether possible, as explained, is to restrict AI entities
> (operating autonomous agent) not the AI source code nor the AI System.
> Generally speaking:
> 1) a open source developer would be able to build (according to the
> relative OS license) any AI source code, model or system. These are tools
> of the open source community, and they fall under the OSD.
> 2) an AI Entity, born by that tool (without entering in ethics), and
> generally speaking more or less autonomous, it’s not a human developer nor
> a tool. Therefore there should be more attention from a legal point of view.
>
> The non-deterministic nature is given by the probabilistic pattern that
> powers machine learning, as you might know, unrelated to the deterministic
> nature of the computers, *this is a fact*.
> It’s like saying that since we know your DNA, we can tell what you are
> going to do in a sunny day of June (of course this is a exaggeration, but I
> hope you get the point).
> Talking, for example, about GPT models, if you ask “How much is the result
> of 5 * 3?” for three times, it will give you three different answers *more
> or less* about the fact that the result it 15.
>
> There are already many resources on it, I will give you one among many,
> that you might already know:
> -
> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/v-word-challenge-ai-determinism-part-2-charles-chen/
>
>
> At the moment, the 5 * 3 question might look irrelevant as covered case,
> it looks like conventional software. But let’s take a look at the same
> exact GPT model, applied in a different way, in this experiment (already
> usable now):
> - https://github.com/Significant-Gravitas/Auto-GPT
>
> The problem here is that if you ask the AI to go from X to Z, you don’t
> know what the exact steps will be in the middle [X —> unknown —> unknown(n)
> —>  Z(ish)], and that should raise a flag for the community.
> Because, even if you can reliably bet on a Z(ish) result, you can’t
> predict it with 100% of probability, and you can’t tell what will be done
> precisely in order to get there.
>
> In my opinion. this brings a problem of accountability and the OSD lacks
> to identify this distinction.
> Who will be accountable for any legal issue? Also here many resources
> start to popup, for example https://arxiv.org/pdf/2206.11834.pdf.
>
> ———
>
> Dear Carlo Pina,
>
> I must confess I have many troubles with your "license", starting from the
> fact that it is not a license, but a restriction applied on the top of a
> license. As the name suggests, the main intent of this document is to
> impose a restriction on certain uses, users and fields of endeavour: for
> that it is directly against #5 and #6, in my reading. That alone
> disqualifies the "license". Have you spent time considering the OSD before
> applying for approval, in the face of this striking problem, without even
> trying to address it with a convincing rationale?
>
>
> Yes, like I mentioned in the text, point 5 and 6 are referring to
> “persons” not AI autonomous agents, which shouldn’t be falling in neither
> definition of software and persons.
> However, you are very right, this is my limitation and lack of legal
> knowledge about the difference between *license* and *restriction.* I
> will definitely ask for a legal advice on this.
>
> Frankly, and this is perhaps the most fatal flow, I am not buying the very
> concept of "let's keep open source from AI generators" at all.
>
>
> Please, consider the fact, as before mentioned, that these are not just
> “generators”.
>
> Additionally, you claim that the SPDX (not SPIDX) identifier for your
> "license" is RAIL, but I see no trace of it in the official list of
> licenses. In order to claim it's an SPDX id, you should ask for it in the
> first place and since it is basically a first-come-first-served basis,
> using it before having secured it is not a good idea.
>
>
> Oh! I didn’t know about this. I thought this was assigned after an
> eventual approval, and that should be ask in the submission before.
>
> I urge you to reconsider your submission -- which I think should be
> outright rejected without much further ado -- and the very underlying
> purpose. And to consider it in the light of the legislative initiatives
> which -- unlike open source licensing -- have some chances to have an
> impact on the good handling of AI.
>
>
> Thanks for the advice. I will try to do my part.
>
> ———
>
> Dear Simon,
>
> Thanks for the advice as well.
>
> ———
>
> Best regards.
>
>
> On 18 Apr 2023, at 14:00, license-review-request at lists.opensource.org
> wrote:
>
> Send License-review mailing list submissions to
> license-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> license-review-request at lists.opensource.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> license-review-owner at lists.opensource.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of License-review digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Approval - Restricted Artificial Intelligence License
>      (RAIL) (Thorsten Glaser)
>   2. Re: Approval - Restricted Artificial Intelligence License
>      (RAIL) (Carlo Piana)
>   3. Re: Approval - Restricted Artificial Intelligence License
>      (RAIL) (Simon Phipps)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 09:54:56 +0000 (UTC)
> From: Thorsten Glaser <tg at mirbsd.de>
> To: License submissions for OSI review
> <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval - Restricted Artificial
> Intelligence License (RAIL)
> Message-ID: <Pine.BSM.4.64L.2304180945300.10778 at herc.mirbsd.org>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8
>
> Emanuele D. dixit:
>
> AI entities can learn, adapt, and perform complex tasks *autonomously*
> and with *non-deterministic* patterns.
>
>
> I call absolute, utter BULLSHIT on this.
>
> AI is software that runs on deterministic computers, PRNG input
> notwithstanding. It?s equivalent to a compiler, and its output
> is not ?generated? (it wouldn?t need any ?training data? if it
> were so) but a derivative of its input (training data, and to a
> small amount prompt and possibly PRNG), in a deterministic way.
>
> So-called ?AI? cannot be the subject of copyright because it?s
> not a juristic entity. (AFAIR this was already confirmed in
> court: there can be no copyright claims on AI output.)
> Therefore, any copyright-relevant issues on AI is bound to its
> users as it?s just a tool. I maintain that in almost all cases,
> and generally enough to assume this true unless proven otherwise
> (via an auditable code and ?training data? trail) its output is
> n?n-distributable because that violates the licence on the input.
> (It has been proven that the input can even be recovered in large
> enough amounts to be recognisable, about ? of an image complete
> with watermarks for example.)
>
> I believe we don?t need any specific licences for this, and that
> the existing ones are not only sufficient (they specify conditions
> on creating derivative works and ?conveying? them) but also the
> maximum protection possible (anything further would be a restriction
> on use (by the legal entity operating the AI software / ?compiler?)
> which is not free). I did add an interpretation on the MirOS Licence
> webpage explaining this; use of ?AI? where the input is homogenously
> licenced and all copyright and licence statements are retained as
> required, if it existed, would be legal.
>
> bye,
> //mirabilos
> --
> I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
> when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy
> them.
> If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny
> existence. -- Coywolf Qi Hunt
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 12:55:44 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Carlo Piana <osi-review at piana.eu>
> To: License submissions for OSI review
> <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval - Restricted Artificial
> Intelligence License (RAIL)
> Message-ID:
> <507567272.10021936.1681815344637.JavaMail.zimbra at piana.eu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Dear Emanuele,
>
> I must confess I have many troubles with your "license", starting from the
> fact that it is not a license, but a restriction applied on the top of a
> license. As the name suggests, the main intent of this document is to
> impose a restriction on certain uses, users and fields of endeavour: for
> that it is directly against #5 and #6, in my reading. That alone
> disqualifies the "license". Have you spent time considering the OSD before
> applying for approval, in the face of this striking problem, without even
> trying to address it with a convincing rationale?
>
> I highlight the relevant language in ?3:
>
> The Restricted Artificial Intelligence License, or simply RAIL, **is a
> license extension **
> designed to **restrict** the [permission to] use, copy, modify, merge,
> publish, distribute, sublicense of
> software under an existing open source license, for AI entities.
>
>
> There are many other shortcomings that appear abundantly evident. The
> language is quirky, it is very difficult to understand what is the legal
> implication of applying it to any license (eg. what happens to the GPLv3
> under section 7?), I reckon it has not been vetted by a lawyer. The fact
> that you call it a license, when a license is in its essence a permission
> and you are proposing something that adds a restriction to a permission,
> does not give reassurances in the fact that you understood what is the
> subject matter of "license approval":
>
> Additionally, you claim that the SPDX (not SPIDX) identifier for your
> "license" is RAIL, but I see no trace of it in the official list of
> licenses. In order to claim it's an SPDX id, you should ask for it in the
> first place and since it is basically a first-come-first-served basis,
> using it before having secured it is not a good idea.
>
> Frankly, and this is perhaps the most fatal flow, I am not buying the very
> concept of "let's keep open source from AI generators" at all.
>
> I urge you to reconsider your submission -- which I think should be
> outright rejected without much further ado -- and the very underlying
> purpose. And to consider it in the light of the legislative initiatives
> which -- unlike open source licensing -- have some chances to have an
> impact on the good handling of AI.
>
> I'm replying as a FOSS licensing expert, not as member of the Board of
> OSI. This reply is therefore not part of a formal process within OSI.
>
> With best regards,
>
> Carlo Piana
>
>
> ----- Messaggio originale -----
>
> Da: "Emanuele D." <deboni.emanuele at gmail.com>
> A: "license-review at lists.opensource.org" <
> license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Inviato: Luned?, 17 aprile 2023 17:33:12
> Oggetto: [License-review] Approval - Restricted Artificial Intelligence
> License (RAIL)
>
>
> Dear Board,
>
>
> I hope you are well and safe. My name Is Emanuele De Boni, I am a
> philologist by
> academic education turned into software engineer. My Master?s thesis was
> around
> open source licenses (2012) and since then I?ve been part (passively) of
> the
> community.
>
>
> I recently reflected about the importance of a clear distinction between
> humans
> and AI entities, to push the Open Source Initiative forward and protect the
> drive to innovation, collaboration and creativity that resulted from its
> principles.
>
>
> As a specialised linguistic, I would like here to submit at your attention
> the
> attached license draft, containing already the supporting data reminded
> here [
> https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process/#approval |
> https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process/#approval ] . I give also,
> my
> availability to call and discuss it together, I am currently located in
> Amsterdam Time Zone (CEST).
>
>
> I attached 3 textual file types: .txt, .md, .pdf.
>
>
> Looking forward,
> Kind Regards.
>
>
> Emanuele De Boni
> +31657175374 (active on WhatsApp and Telegram)
> [ https://www.linkedin.com/in/emanueledeboni/ |
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/emanueledeboni/ ]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily
> those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source
> Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
>
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 12:21:52 +0100
> From: Simon Phipps <simon at webmink.com>
> To: License submissions for OSI review
> <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval - Restricted Artificial
> Intelligence License (RAIL)
> Message-ID:
> <CAA4ffp_Ejqh6tuxVo2ZWrk5e+icVufL6pDgL-iqOhzhawXHusA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi all,
>
> I do not believe this submission represents a valid license, since it is a
> manifesto for an unspecified text intended to be applied to modify
> unspecified open source licenses. Since we do not have the full text of any
> combination to consider for approval, I believe this submission should be
> automatically rejected.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Simon
> (in a personal capacity)
>
> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 10:32?AM Emanuele D. <deboni.emanuele at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Dear Board,
>
> I hope you are well and safe. My name Is Emanuele De Boni, I am a
> philologist by academic education turned into software engineer. My
> Master?s thesis was around open source licenses (2012) and since then I?ve
> been part (passively) of the community.
>
> I recently reflected about the importance of a clear distinction between
> humans and AI entities, to push the Open Source Initiative forward and
> protect the drive to innovation, collaboration and creativity that resulted
> from its principles.
>
> As a specialised linguistic, I would like here to submit at your attention
> the attached license draft, containing already the supporting data reminded
> here https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process/#approval. I give
> also, my availability to call and discuss it together, I am currently
> located in Amsterdam Time Zone (CEST).
>
> I attached 3 textual file types: .txt, .md, .pdf.
>
>
>
> Looking forward,
> Kind Regards.
>
> Emanuele De Boni
> +31657175374 (active on WhatsApp and Telegram)
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/emanueledeboni/
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
>
>
> --
> *Simon Phipps*
> *Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
> *Signal/Telegram/Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20230418/96476b1c/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of License-review Digest, Vol 117, Issue 2
> **********************************************
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the
> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20230420/5d2480a1/attachment-0001.html>