[mod50ack]

Any license that discriminates based on use case would not qualify as open source under the Open Source Initiative definition, nor as free software under the FSF definition. You also shouldn't expect for your project/code to be reused by or incorporated into any free or open-source projects, since your license would be incompatible.

You can release software under whatever license you want, though whether any restriction would be legally enforceable is another matter.

[pxc]

> Any license that discriminates based on use case would not qualify as open source under the Open Source Initiative definition, nor as free software under the FSF definition.

Freedom 0 is about the freedom to run the software "for any purpose", not "use" the software for any purpose. Training an LLM on source code isn't running the software. (Not sure about the OSD and don't feel like reviewing it.)

Anyway, you could probably have a license that explicitly requires AIs trained on a work to be licensed under a compatible free software license or something like that. Conditions like that are comparable to the AGPL or something, adding requirements but still respecting freedom 0.

But that's not an "anti-AI" license so much as one that tries to avert AI-based copyright laundering.

[mattmcal]

Depending on how the courts weigh in on the role of fair use in AI training, it's possible that a "copyleft for AI" clause would end up either redundant with the existing GPL, or legally void. It would be crazy complicated to enforce if it does hold water though.

[GuB-42]

If training AI is a copyright exemption, and it is likely to be the case, then the license is irrelevant.

If it is not then the trained AI is a derivative work, which the license should allow as long as it is publishable under the same license to be considered open source or free software.

In any case, I don't think an anti-AI clause would serve a meaningful purpose on open source software. You can however make your own "source available" license that explicitly prevents its use on AI training, and I am sure that some of them exist, but I don't think it will do much good, as it is likely to be unenforceable (because of copyright exemptions) and will make it incompatible with many things open source.

[Palmik]

It would not be discrimination to mandate that weights of any model trained in the code need to be released under similarly open license.

[hkt]

Leaving aside the sentence case in the title, the author's post didn't capitalise open source: they clearly mean source which is open to be read freely, and from the context this can clearly be read.

[kstrauser]

I disagree. They said open source, so I’ll take them at their word that they mean open source. If they meant otherwise, they should’ve said that instead.

This is a highly nitpicky topic where terms have important meanings. If we toss that out, it becomes impossible to discuss it.

[orphea]

  > the author's post didn't capitalise open source: they clearly mean

You can't make this conclusion. A lot of people simply don't bother with capitalizing words in a certain way to convey certain meaning.

[on_the_train]

A random "initiative" does not have the power to redefine words. If the source is available, it's open source.

[Etheryte]

The OSI definition of open-source software is recognized by several governments worldwide as definitive and legally binding. What you're describing is source available and that's a very different thing.

[dkdcio]

that would be “source available” software, and it’s not a random initiative

there is disagreement on exactly what “open source” means, but generally clear boundaries between open source and source available software in licensing and spirit of the given project. e.g. MIT and Apache 2.0 are open source, BSL is source available.

edit: PERSONALLY, I think if you don’t welcome outside contributions, it isn’t open source; see others’ responses for disagreement on this (it’s not a part of the standard definition)

[pojntfx]

Open Source means OSI-approved license in the software context. Some government examples of this being explicitly mentioned:

- Canada/British Columbia: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/government/services-for-go... - European Union (this applies to all EU member states): https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/2847/oj/eng - search for "Free and open-source software is understood" in the text - Germany (the EU definition already applies here, but for good measure): https://www.bsi.bund.de/DE/Themen/Verbraucherinnen-und-Verbr...

Words have meaning!

[pessimizer]

The didn't redefine the words, they defined them. Anyone using them for anything other than the purposes they were defined to cover is a dishonest parasite who is intending to trade on the goodwill of the people who adhere to OSI's guidelines. "Open Source," capitalized or not, was not a common phrase before they introduced it. I don't care if somebody in 1965 said "I decided I'm going to be open, and share the source code!" Somebody sitting right next to him probably said "I decided I'm going to be open, and tell people that I will never share the source code."

Because prefixing something with the word "Open" to imply that it would be completely transparent (in any context) wasn't even common before the term "Open Source" was invented. When people do that, they're hoping that the goodwill that Open Source has generated will be transferred to them, and they are judged on that basis. "Open" generally had a slightly different meaning: honest.

> A random "initiative"

And when you play stupid, nobody respects your argument. It's self-defeating.

[chrisoverzero]

Not all phrases’ meanings are derivable from the literal definitions of the words that make them up.