Should the next GPL and BSD licenses include a clause that the code can not be used to train AIs and LLMs and other such contraptions?

I thought it was just implied that you can't. I'd be way easier to make a case in court so it applies retroactively to all projects that uses GPL.

>>105678847 (OP)
if you're against innovation, yeah

>>105678847 (OP)
How are you going to enforce this? And even if you can, what's the problem of current GPL licensed code being used to train AI? This means all the AI produced code must be released under GPL as well.

>>105678905
Yes. That is a feature, not a bug of the license. Good job.

>>105678887
>innovation
stealing by big tech? yeah i'm against innovation for sure, 100%

AI companies are claiming fair use anyways.

>>105678887
Release the derived product under a compatible license. Simple as. Tech chuds like (((Mark Zuckerberg))) and (((Sam Altman))) don't get a free ride.

>>105678911
My point was if GPL works as intended in this case why would anyone make another license?

>>105678847 (OP)
We need laws that say anybody can train any AI for any purpose on anybody else's content with no permission or regard for copyright.

>>105679319
saar

>>105678847 (OP)
They do not care. Facebook pirated multiple terabytes of books and papers ro train their AI. They do not give a fuck

>sam altman
>sta llman
what did they mean by this

>>105678930
it's stealing FROM big tech you retard