alt Hacker NewsSounds like a reasonable guideline to me. Even for open source models, you can add a license term that requires users of the open source model to take "appropriate measures to avoid the repeated generation of output that is identical or recognisably similar to protected works"
This is European law, not US. Reasonable means reasonable and judges here are expected to weigh each side's interests and come to a conclusion. Not just a literal interpretation of the law.
Replies
> Even for open source models, you can add a license term that requires users of the open source model to take appropriate measures to avoid [...]
You just made the model not open source
Except that it’s seemingly impossible to prevent against prompt injection. The cat is out the bag. Much like a lot of other legislation (eg cookie law, being responsible for user generated content when you have millions of it posted per day) it’s entirely impractical albeit well-meaning.
There is no way to enforce that license. Free software doesn't have funds for such lawsuits.
> This is European law, not US. Reasonable means reasonable and judges here are expected to weigh each side's interests and come to a conclusion. Not just a literal interpretation of the law.
I think you've got civil and common law the wrong way round :). US judges have _much_ more power to interpret law!