Arguably it's even worse when they try to give "unique" names to similar-in-spirit products.

I will never forgive them for all the hair pulling I had to do to try differentiating between Team Foundation Version Control, Team Foundation Server, Team Foundation Services, Visual Studio Team Services, Visual Studio Online, Azure DevOps Server, and Azure DevOps Services.

Astro would call that an island: https://docs.astro.build/en/concepts/islands/

I guess this is our answer to the question of why Cloudflare acquired it in the first place.

You seem like the type of person that will believe anything as long as someone cites a case without looking into it. Bartz v Anthropic only looked at books, and there was still a 1.5 billion settlement that Anthropic paid out because it got those books from LibGen / Anna's Archive, and the ruling also said that the data has to be acquired "legitimately".

Whether data acquired from a licence that specifically forbids building a derivative work without also releasing that derivative under the same licence counts as a legitimate data gathering operation is anyone's guess, as those specific circumstances are about as far from that prior case as they can be.

As long as they don't distribute the model's weights, even a strict interpretation of the GPL should be fine. Same reason Google doesn't have to upstream changes to the Linux kernel they only deploy in-house.

But LLMs do distribute the derived code they generate outside of their company. That's their entire point.

But wouldn't that be like some company using gpl licensed code to host a code generator for something? At least in a legal interpretation. Or is that different?

And why would that be different or allowed? Sure, you get all the code you want, GPL licensed.

Everybody is trying to have their cake and eat it, too, by license laundering.

Heck, money laundering means you at least lose some of the money.

I have no idea. I genuinly was asking out of curiosity on what the law actually means for that while speculating.

I mean, is the case you're making that you can run a SaaS business on GPL-derived code without fulfilling GPL obligations because you're not distributing a binary?

Yes, that's exactly what people do and did. That 'loophole' is the whole reason people came up with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Affero_General_Public_Lice...

I guess I am. I genuinly am just a layperson trying to look at what the law would say, so everything is speculation.

If true that would seem to invalidate the entire GPL, but even by that logic, a website (such as chatGPT) distributes javascript that runs the code, and programs like claude code also do so. Again, if you can slip the GPL's requirements through indirection like having your application go phone home to your server to go get the infringing parts, the GPL would essentially unenforceable in... most contexts

That's where the AGPL comes in. The GPL(v2) does not require eg Google or Facebook to release any of the changes they've made to the Linux kernel. That they do so is not because of a legal obligation to do so. The "to get parts" thing is the relevant detail to be very specific on. If those parts are a binary that is used, then the GPL does kick in, but for distributing source code that's possibly derived, possibly not covered by copyright, it's not been decided in a court of law yet.

How about AGPL?

Sure, that one was specifically designed to close that loophole.

Have you actually read the text of the GPL?

> This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.

It is legitimate to acquire GPL software. The requirements of the license only occur if you're distributing the work AND fair use does not apply.

Training certainly doesn't count as distribution, so the buck passes to inference, which leaves us dealing with substantial similarity test, and still, fair use.

There is the clean room problem though.

If a human reads GPL code and outputs a recreation of that code (derivative work) using what they learned - that is illegal.

If an AI reads GPL code and outputs a recreation of that code using what it "learned" - it's not illegal?

If that is the case, then copyright holds no weight any more. I should be allowed to train an LLM on decompiled firmware (say, Playstation, Switch, iPhone) in countries where decompilation is legal - then have the LLM produce equivalent firmware that I later use to build an emulator (or competing open source firmware).

> If that is the case, then copyright holds no weight any more. I should be allowed to train an LLM on decompiled firmware (say, Playstation, Switch, iPhone) in countries where decompilation is legal - then have the LLM produce equivalent firmware that I later use to build an emulator (or competing open source firmware).

It's funny you mention that, because one of the biggest fair use cases that effectively cemented "fair use" for emulators is Sony Computer Entertainment Inc v. Connectix Corp.[1] where the copying of PlayStaion BIOS files for the purposes of reverse engineering and creating an emulator was explicitly ruled to be fair use, including running that code through a disassembler.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Computer_Entertainment,_I....

You and I are not a fucking judge, our opinions on this don't matter one bit. We might as well print it on a piece of paper and wipe our asses with it.

It's always a better idea to make a local copy of it.

Imagine they're downloading a project directly from your GitHub account. Even if you're not doing anything malicious and have no intention of doing anything malicious even after you've been aware of this, now all of a sudden your GitHub account / email is a huge target for anyone that wants to do something malicious.

They "gift you" a free standard plan if you have above a certain (non-transparent) level of stars, I don't think you can even disable your "subscription" if you get it for free.

.yu was purchasable long after the country ceased to exist, until 2008 to be exact.

Technically speaking, "Yugoslavia" continued to exist until 2003, when the name finally got deprecated in favour of "Serbia & Montenegro" as one country (also including the territory of Kosovo), which itself only lasted 3 years before Montenegro declared independence (and Kosovo did the same 2 years after).

So however you spin it, the domain outlived the country by at least 5 years, arguably 15(ish), 9 of which were post-war(s).

Some of the modern-day countries retained their five-digit postcodes from Yugoslav times (Serbia and Bosnia for sure, maybe a few more, I'm too lazy to check), some only got rid of the first digit which used to identify individual Yugoslav republics (AKA modern-day countries).

So I'd say it's highly likely they'd be delivered, as it's still mostly the same, though I should point out many cities changed names since. For like the most basic example, Montenegro's capital was called Titograd between WW2 and 1992, before it swapped back to being called Podgorica.

In Croatia only Zagreb got changed to 10 000 (because capital), the rest stayed the same.

Betting on a ceasefire isn't the interesting part, placing a five digit bet on a ceasefire by March 31st using brand-new accounts is.

Do you have any other plausible explanation for this behaviour? I can't think of any, if it's just like your average WallStreetBets gambler, why would they be making these bets from brand-new accounts?

Why wouldn't you constantly create new accounts for each bet? Isn't that like privacy/safety 101 for crypto?

Conspiracy theories are once again gossip for men. Interestingly, you can put your money where your mouth is in this case open your own account and make your own bets since you seem convinced. might as well cash in. Which gives me an idea … if only I had enough cash sitting around…

I'd rather set my money on fire than gamble, thank you very much.

We've been through this already, someone placed a $30k bet (payout around $400k) that Maduro will leave office by the end of January hours before the US raid took place.

Have you noticed any meaningful scandals back then?

A whole lot of websites are inaccessible from my country when there's football on, due to a judicial order meant to curb piracy.

The whole deal with Chat Control is also not to be forgotten. I do think you guys see this place with rose tinted glasses sometimes.

Does that football scenario mean that the rule of law doesn't exist or that it does exist and is being enforced?

I agree with you that both of those laws are stupid, but that's a completely separate discussion to what I'm claiming above.

Depends on how you interpret the ECHR.

Does it allow blocking half the internet during football games?

It almost certainly does not: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-115705%...

AFAIU this is common because lower courts often deliberately choose to not try to interpret ECHR, leaving that for appeals courts.

I interpret ECHR as what it is: not a regulatory body by any stretch of the imagination. It can recommend changes to the national law, but it cannot force any state to do so. You seem to be interpreting it as some sort of an equivalent to the US supreme court, which it is not.

But now we're straying even further from my original argument which boils down to "laws mean something" into arguing the intricacies of how laws are supposed to be changed. I'm not interested in having that discussion, as it has nothing to do with my original claim.

ECHR decisions are (supposed to be) legally binding. If they're not obeyed, that's not a good look for rule of law in Europe.

ECHR decisions are certainly not mere recommendations.

>It can recommend changes to the national law, but it cannot force any state to do so

ECHR can simply invalidate national law.

According to whom? You?

The only thing ECHR cares about is one piece of "legislation", which is not a law, but a declaration (Declaration of Human Rights), so that you have some sort of internationally recognised body to go to whenever you feel that your local judicial system has done you injustice. That is all it does. That is all it is meant to do. That is the sole reason of its existence. It is not a legislative body at all.

> ECHR can simply invalidate national law.

It can't. You're either making things up or severely misunderstanding the court. It can say "this law doesn't align with the Declaration" and that's it. The law still exists. ECHR relies on signatories being willing to make the necessary changes themselves. Some are and get right on it, some aren't. The election law in my country has lost 5 cases in the ECHR and not a single one of the verdicts are fixed as of now, the oldest of which dates back to 2009. This is horrible, I want to see them fixed, but ECHR can't force us to fix it and we as in the country face 0 consequences for not addressing any of them (as of yet).

There is a separate court called European Court of Justice which is the equivalent of the US supreme court and is tasked with interpreting EU-wide laws and making sure national laws are aligned as much as possible. That is a legislative body with an enforcement mechanism. ECHR is not, you don't know what you're talking about.

>According to whom? You?

According to the European Convention on Human Rights, it's sort of the whole point.