Hacker News Reader

Comment by bugfix-66 | Hacker News Reader

It's literally the standard BSD 2-Clause License, word for word, with an additional third clause:

  3. Use in source or binary forms for the construction or operation
     of predictive software generation systems is prohibited.

Hardly nonsense, but obviously you aren't equipped to judge. More about the BSD licenses:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses

View on HN

How would you ever prove the parameters of a model were generated by specific training data? Couldn't multiple sets of training data produce the same embeddings/parameters? I imagine there could be infinite possible sets of training data that would lead to the same results, depending on the type of predictive software.

Yes, that added clause is nonsense. On top of being nonsense, there is significant precedent.

Remember the lawsuit of HiQ labs vs LinkedIn? Scraping, or viewing public data on a public webpage is legal.

https://gizmodo.com/linkedin-scraping-data-legal-court-case-...

If the GPL can defeat Copilot, we need an more permissive MIT/BSD-style license to do the same.

This does seem like a pretty compelling rebuttal, since the preceding comment suggests that GPL does nothing to Microsoft's ability to incorporate code into Copilot's model.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com