This was only a matter of time. It'll be interesting to see how this will unfold. Potentially it could turn into lawsuit cases being built up, it could also mean content producers get a cut down the line... of course could be both. Since FOSS code also ends up in training those models I'm even wondering if that could lead to money going back to the authors. We'll see where that goes.

Definitely this! Major FOSS projects should think twice before giving their street creds to such closed systems. They've been produced with dubious ethics and copyright practices and since they're usable only through APIs the induced vendor lock-in will be strong.

This lawsuit and the first ruling are indeed very concerning. Let's hope we keep the Internet Archive alive, their work is invaluable.

For all the conversations about how chat GPT might displace jobs, there's a big untold: how much of copyright is violated in the process? It's also very concerning about how much data it collects when interacted with.

It seems this isn't necessary after all. At most if you like it you can put the year of creation of the copyrighted content, but the range and bumping it really isn't necessary.

Alright, this going to be interesting. Pass me the pop corn. It's definitely a welcome move in any case.

Very interesting thought experiment around Copilot's legality. I'd love to see that happen and see what the outcome would be.

There's really a problem with GitHub overall... and the Copilot move is definitely worrying. Not Copilot by itself really but how they just don't want to tackle the questions it raises.

Interesting description on how the FSF deals with copyright assignments, CLAs, DCOs and the various legal tools needed.