It’s otherwise a fairly well written article but the title is a bit misleading.
In that context, scare quotes usually mean that generative AI was trained on someone’s work and produced something strikingly similar. That’s not what happened here.
This is just regular copyright violations and unethical behavior. The fact that it was an AI company is mostly unrelated to their breaches. The author covers 3 major complaints and only one of them even mentions AI and the complaint isn’t about what the AI did it’s about what was done with the result. As far as I know the APL2.0 itself isn’t copyrighted and nobody cares if you copy or alter the license itself. The problem is that you can’t just remove the APL2.0 from some work it’s attached to.
It’s otherwise a fairly well written article but the title is a bit misleading.
In that context, scare quotes usually mean that generative AI was trained on someone’s work and produced something strikingly similar. That’s not what happened here.
This is just regular copyright violations and unethical behavior. The fact that it was an AI company is mostly unrelated to their breaches. The author covers 3 major complaints and only one of them even mentions AI and the complaint isn’t about what the AI did it’s about what was done with the result. As far as I know the APL2.0 itself isn’t copyrighted and nobody cares if you copy or alter the license itself. The problem is that you can’t just remove the APL2.0 from some work it’s attached to.
This is great. So all their VC-funded work will get released publicly, and we all benefit.
I don’t see why people are upset that FOSS projects are getting VC funding for development…
Haha. Maybe.
I doubt the VCs will provide much followup funding if they can’t control the code base but weirder things have happened.
If Mr. Money bags comes to you with a contract that says anything about IP or equity, tell them to fuck off