• onlinepersona@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I think the fact that you got the point from the license name and the link fulfilled the purpose of informing the reader.

    As for AI training who knows how well they clean their data. Copilot spit out the entire GPL verbatim as well as a few other licenses and got sued. Data cleaning processes clearly vary among companies.

    But if you have an idea on how to better indicate that content is licensed at a glance, go ahead and do it.

    Anti Commercial-AI license

    • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      5 months ago

      Well you could always just use the proper name. The cc license in question IS anti commercial. A great deal of ai is opens source and non commercial and to those cc is fair game. But if commercial is where you draw the line then envoking this license may do.

      This comment is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International)

      Calling it “anti-ai” when its not removes power from your argument. Your invoking something that does not exit and linking to something seemingly unrelated.

      Now the bigger question i have, have had since i have seen people do this.

      Why is there still not an actual anti-ai license? Seems obvious that there is a need for it? I dont know much about how licenses are created but it strikes me as odd.