[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Help building Pen.el (GPT for emacs)

From: Jean Louis
Subject: Re: Help building Pen.el (GPT for emacs)
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2021 15:47:21 +0300
User-agent: Mutt/2.0.7+183 (3d24855) (2021-05-28)

* Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> [2021-07-23 14:51]:
> > According to online reviews chunks of code is copied even verbatim and
> > people find from where.
> That cannot be true.  It is nonsense to copy unrelated code into a
> program and tell people this is what they should use.

I wonder how sure you are in that, did you do the online research? It
is not about related or unrelated, I do believe that AI finds and
generates related code. But 

Here are references disputing how "it cannot be true":




> > If code compiles or not is irrelevant. If one runs it or not is also
> > irrelevant, code need not even run.
> A feature or service that is based on this idea will never fly,
> believe me.  Which program would want to have code pasted into his/her
> program that would cause compilation errors or, worse, break it at run
> time?

Of course people want code to fun. Just that copyright laws don't
handle technical functionality. It is irrelevant if program works or
does not work. There are thousands of copyrighted programs that cannot
work any more as devices are not on the market, they are still under

> > I do not believe that any of the AI-s so far "extract ideas". I never
> > heard of it. Which algorithms is there on this planet that may extract
> > idea? 
> That's a very general question, it is impossible to answer it in a
> post to a mailing list.  If you are really interested, you will have
> to read up on that.  But you are wrong in your beliefs.
> > If newly generated code is modification from other code, what we know
> > now that it is, and is based on, that requires licensing
> > attributions. 
> Once again, your assumptions are all wrong, so your conclusions are
> also wrong.  Why not try one of these services and see what they
> actually do, before you pass your (quite harsh) judgment on them, and
> on the modern state of AI in general?

I can hear you how I am wrong, conclusions are wrong, though I gave
you references enough to research it on Internet that will tell that
there are possible serious licensing problems with such generated

> > That licenses are relevant one can see from online discussions related
> > to Github Copilot:
> That people ask these questions and discuss this doesn't mean the
> problem is real.  many people don't really understand what copyright
> means and how to apply it to program code.

Well said! Though that is not relevant.

Question is very particular, specific and concrete:

How does Pen.el and background AI services ensure of licensing

I would appreciate if you find solution to that or stay on that
subject, as if I am wrong or right is not relevant, what I wish is to
have assurance that it is free software. Prove me wrong by providing
exact references in not only on country's law but also other
countries' laws, the lows that make it legal, or how otherwise the
legality of such code is justified and how users may get free

For example you may wish to mention "fair use" and on the other hand
similar laws must be found in other countries that would justify it to
be free software. 

As long as you don't tackle those subjects there is no legal solution
for Pen.el and background AI to be used with assurance that software
is truly free software.


Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:

In support of Richard M. Stallman

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]