Re:Google “We Have No Moat, and Neither Does OpenAI”
by nine_k on Thursday May 04, 2023 @10:23PM
(#35824582)
The license that prevents use by a particular list of corporations can likely be easily crafted.
But because any particular invention about LLMs is not a specific product but an approach, it would just be re-implemented.
One could imagine patenting an approach, if it ends up being patentable, and then giving everyone but some excluded entities a grant of royalty-free use. But, unless the use if that particular approach is inevitably very obvious (which is really unlikely with ML models), you would have hard time detecting violations and especially enforcing your patent.
Re:Google “We Have No Moat, and Neither Does OpenAI”
by kistaro on Thursday May 04, 2023 @11:00PM
(#35824744)
The No Google License functionally exists: it's the AGPL. https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...
Re:Google “We Have No Moat, and Neither Does OpenAI”
by codethief on Friday May 05, 2023 @04:05PM
(#35834477)
Let's call it the Underdog License. It must not be used by any of the top N tech companies in terms of market share and/or market capitalization.
Re:Google “We Have No Moat, and Neither Does OpenAI”
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 on Friday May 05, 2023 @07:52PM
(#35836558)
Neither Alphabet, Google nor their successors, subsidiaries, affiliates, business partners, academic collaborators or parent companies may use this software; all of the foregoing are specifically prohibited from any use of this software.
Imagine for a moment, in a different universe, in a different galaxy, another planet is ostensibly a mirror image of Earth, evolving along the same trajectory. However on this hypothetical planet, anything is possible. This has resulted in some interesting differences.
The No Google License
Neither Google, its subsidiaries, business partners nor its academic collaborators may use this software. Under no circumstance may this software be directly or indirectly used to further Google's business or other objectives.
If 100s or 1000s or more people on planet X started adopting this license for their open source projects, then of course it won't stop Google from copying them or even using the code as is. But it would muddy the waters with 100s or 1000s or more potential lawsuits. Why would any company risk it.
There is nothing stopping anyone writing software for which they have no intention of charging license fees. It's done all the time these days. There is also nothing stopping anyone from prohibiting certain companies from using it, or prohibiting certain uses.
I recall in the early days of the web when "shareware" licenses often tried to distinguish commercial from non-commercial use. Commercial use would presumably incur higher fees. Non-commercial use was either free or low cost. I always wondered, "How is the author going to discover if XYZ, LLC is using his software?" (This is before telemetry was common.) The license seemed unworkable, but that did not stop me from using the software. I was never afraid that I would be mistaken for a commercial user and the author would come knocking asking me to agree to a commercial license. I doubt I was the only one bold enough to use software with licenses prohibiting commercial use.
Even a "No Microsoft License" would make Github more interesting. One could pick some random usage. Microsoft may not this software for X. Would this make MSFT's plans more complicated. Try it and see what happens. Only way to know for sure.
Instead, MSFT is currently trying to out the plaintiffs in the Doe v Github case, over MSFT's usage of other peoples' code who put their stuff on Github, and as the Court gets ready to decide the issue, it's becoming clear IMO that if these individual are named, these brave individuals will lose their jobs and be blackballed from ever working in software again.
The No Internet Advertising License
This software may not be used to create or support internet advertising services for commercial gain.