Creator, or proof reader ?
Creator, or proof reader ?
Posted May 12, 2024 19:33 UTC (Sun) by mb (subscriber, #50428)In reply to: Creator, or proof reader ? by kleptog
Parent article: Debian dismisses AI-contributions policy
That is not obvious at all.
By that same reasoning my code obfuscator would be Ok to use.
The output is obviously not a copy of the input. You can compare it and it looks completely different.
But the output of the obfuscator obviously is a derived work of the input. Right?
And I don't see why this would be different for an LLM.
Or does using a more complex mixing algorithm suddenly make it not a derived work of the input?
What amount of token stirring is needed?
Posted May 13, 2024 7:30 UTC (Mon)
by kleptog (subscriber, #1183)
[Link]
> That is not obvious at all.
Have you actually used one?
> But the output of the obfuscator obviously is a derived work of the input. Right?
Not at all. "Derived work" is a legal term not a technical one. Running a copyrighted work through an algorithm does not necessarily create a derived work. In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of a first, previously created original work (the underlying work). If you hash a copyrighted file, the resulting hash is not a derived work simply because it's lost everything that is interesting about the original work.
If your obfuscator has a corresponding deobfuscator that can return the original retaining the major copyrightable elements, then there may be no copyright on the obfuscated file, but as soon as you deobfuscate it, the copyright returns.
Honestly, this feels what "What colour are your bits?"[1] all over again. Are you aware of that article? Statements like this:
> Or does using a more complex mixing algorithm suddenly make it not a derived work of the input? What amount of token stirring is needed?
seem to indicate you are not.
Creator, or proof reader ?