Yeah, that latter bit was my original point. It's easy to hide a derivative work generated by the model, but the model itself MUST comply with the licenses it is trying to launder.
-
we've heard a bit over the years about the work that goes into creating legal test cases. it involves a lot of work trying to find someone who's been harmed in a way with exactly the right fact pattern.
this may well be a form of harm which GitHub gets away with simply due to the logistical difficulty of bringing a case.
-
-
sounds easier to bring it against the person who re-expressed your copyrighted idea you have your own published code under some license, they publish their own code under theirs a) needs to be an incompatible (yours can't be BSD/MIT/Apache) b) you need to see their code
Danke! Twitter wird dies nutzen, um deine Timeline zu verbessern. Rückgängig machenRückgängig machen
-
-
-
yeah "you have violated the license of some code in here but we don't know whose code it was" isn't gonna get very far and that obfuscation works out rather nicely for github
-
what i'd like it's that copyright is default deny: if a license is silent on an action, then that action is not allowed this could give, uh, the FSF with its large volume of copyright assignments the needed standing
- Antworten anzeigen
Neue Unterhaltung -
Das Laden scheint etwas zu dauern.
Twitter ist möglicherweise überlastet oder hat einen vorübergehenden Schluckauf. Probiere es erneut oder besuche Twitter Status für weitere Informationen.