Hello Thanos,
On 2026-07-31 09:14, Thanos Apollo wrote:
Jean Louis <[email protected]> writes:
On 2026-07-31 07:31, Thanos Apollo wrote:
Jean Louis <[email protected]> writes:
unless it is free as in software freedom.
LLM models are not software. They are data assets. Not source code
you
can study and change.
That is why there is "as" in my above sentence "unless it is free as
in
software freedom". The word "as" points to analogous principles. As
purely LLM, there is nothing that LLM can do without software.
And back to copyright issues:
- there are LLMs trained purely on libre datasets;
Are there humans purely trained on libre datasets? I've learned
english
mostly from proprietary movies and books. Is this email and any of my
organic 100% Human Stupidity produced code tainted?
I see the irony there, but it's out of context.
A human and an LLM are not comparable in this discussion. A human learns
language from the world, understands context, has intent, and can reason
about ethics and licensing. An LLM is a statistical machine that
reproduces patterns from its training data. When an LLM generates code
that matches GPL-licensed training data, it's not "inspired by" it—it's
regurgitating what it was fed.
The law treats humans and machines differently. Copyright infringement
requires human copying. A machine doesn't have "fair use" rights, and
courts are still deciding what output from a machine actually means
legally.
And also—this isn't about how I feel about it. The GNU Project and FSF
are currently working on a formal policy for accepting LLM-generated
contributions because the legal implications are real. If there were no
issue, they wouldn't be spending time on it.
- you can modify and study datasets;
- you can modify and study inference software;
Sure, if you have colossus-1 level hardware. Please feel free to make
your own models.
But did I mention making large models on consumer hardware? I don't
remember that.
You can modify and study datasets on any average computer.
You can modify and study inference software on any computer.
I have 1060 GPU in other computer, one 17 year old is able to study it
there in other room.
No, to do your verifications and research you really do not need much
hardware.
Problem is you did not try it yet assumed some position. So I can't
argue from your viewpoint. Try it.
Sorry, that is wrong comparison.
No it is not.
You said DuckDuckGo is service as a software substitute. Who Does That
Server Really Serve? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html
You can surely claim to be so. No problem.
Yet for those other readers who may wonder why I said it is wrong
comparison, is good to read that article and section named To Which
Activities Is the Issue of SaaSS Applicable?
[...]
Anthropic also stole a lot of code from free software
If you think anthropic/openai/whatever stole any code, please sue them.
A group of authors, led by Andrea Bartz, sued Anthropic for using
unauthorized copies of their books in its training datasets. A federal
judge ruled that while the training itself could be considered "fair
use," the act of downloading and storing millions of pirated books to
create a central library was a violation of copyright.
https://mobil.aa.com.tr/en/americas/us-judge-approves-anthropic-s-15b-copyright-settlement/4004782
No matter your love to Anthropic, they are violating copyrights because
they are rich, they can afford it.
So the choice isn't between "use Claude Code" and "write commit
messages
by hand." The choice is between using a proprietary service that
trains
on your data—which means feeding potentially GNU GPL-licensed code
into
a company's training pipeline, diluting the very copyleft protections
Emacs depends on—and using a free software agent that runs on your own
machine with a local model that respects your freedom and keeps your
code out of Anthropic's hands.
Please, don't use LLMs to reply to me. Let's keep it Human Stupidity
only.
That's uncalled for.
If you have nothing substantive to add to the discussion, you can simply
say so. But dismissing my points with a patronizing remark like that is
not an argument—it's just rudeness.
--
Jean Louis
---
via emacs-tangents mailing list
(https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)
