> This study showed that discontinuing and interrupting GLP-1RA treatment could erode and might reverse the cardiovascular benefits of the drug in a duration dependent manner, increasing the risk of cardiovascular events.
1. There are some uses of the copies that were not granted summary judgement
> And, as for any copies made from central library copies but not used for training, this order does not grant summary judgment for Anthropic. On this record in this posture, the central library copies were retained even when no longer serving as sources for training copies, “hundreds of engineers” could access them to make copies for other uses, and engineers did make other copies.
Whether or not those other actions met the requirements of the FDL is untested and would be the subject of a trial, had this gone to trial, but it didn't.
2. The FDL does have requirements that must be met for the use of copies to be permissible -- it doesn't allow you to do anything you want.
While there are requirements on making copies in the FDL, I think it is extraordinarily unlikely that a court would find that a company making internal copies would violate the license when those restrictions are just along the lines of "and you must include a copy of the license".
And the FSF would be extremely foolish to ever pursue such a suit, because extremely ordinary non-AI related activities involving working with internal local documents also make copies in a similar way. If OpenAI violated the FDL by doing so then the FDL is a foot gun of a license that companies would be well advised to avoid.
The only suit that makes any sense would be the one against using the FDL licensed documents to train the not-FDL licensed AI... and the judge already rejected that in this case.
The requirements being easy to meet doesn't absolve someone from having to follow them. And the FSF clearly says they aren't pursuing a suit in this case. I'm not suggesting that filing suit here would make sense, rather, that the FSF does care deeply and fundamentally about requiring requiring copyleft restrictions -- they vehemently don't tolerate permissive use under their licenses.
> If OpenAI violated the FDL by doing so then the FDL is a foot gun of a license that companies would be well advised to avoid.
That has been said about a lot of FSFs licenses, and in fact, many companies do avoid them.
It is. I'm just commenting on why it isn't that straightforward that the FSF presumably wouldn't care. Copyleft is an exercise of copyright. The FSF doesn't believe in permissive use of works - they believe in using copyright licensing to force others to share the way they believe others should share.
Normal people buy computers at a retail store and use it in the factory configuration indefinitely. They think about changing their OS in the same way you think about changing the type of hem stitching on your slacks.
The world is a big place and while Linux is very visible to many of us it is irrelevant to the mindshare of the vast majority of the world. Not because of ignorance, but because it legitimately isn't that important to their life.
I don't care about the hem on my pants. My pants either work, or I get a new pair. This is most people's relationship with their computer.
The iPhone is designed to be a good smartphone, not a good NAS. It is silly to expect anyone to compromise the design of a mass market product to support some esoteric MacGyvering entirely unrelated to the original product.
Should we all expect Toyota to design their ECUs to be used as a NAS?
It's not about "design", because the iPhone is perfectly capable of running arbitrary code, it just refuses to do so if you're not Apple.
The situation is such that the legal owner of the device has less power over it, post-sale, than the company that made it.
That reason alone, the imbalance of power, should be enough to support abolishing those restrictions, preferably by law.
To be clear: this is something that should be beyond market forces, and it should apply to anything that is sold to consumers and can run code. The end goal should be that no user remain less powerful, in terms of code execution and access to content, than the manufacturer.
> It's not about "design", because the iPhone is perfectly capable of running arbitrary code
It is a very intentional UX choice to mitigate malware for users who do not know how to evaluate the legitimacy of software on their own. And studies show that this is a very effective policy, both perceived (e.g. marketing) and real (actual breach statistics).
You can mitigate malware while still allowing for the same level of end-user control as the manufacturer. Look at Windows itself! People getting infected on up-to-date installations is a rarity nowadays, all without draconian lockdown policies.
It took windows many decades to get there and the reputational harm was already done by then. Android is not doing particularly well but it has improved significantly.
Of course Apple doesn’t want people to use their device in a way that’s not how they designed it. They’re very anal about the user experience, they don’t want kids to install ArchLinux on their grandparents iPhones, and have the grandparents complain that their phone is shit. I get that.
Conveniently, the way they designed the phone allows them to charge 30% of every transaction that happens on the device…
But that’s beyond the point. The point is that the iphone is a capable device, that probably can run macos, and it’s a waste that we’re not allowed to.
I'm all for antitrust action against the financial trap that is the app store. But as someone who designs products, I think it's absolutely asinine to require security flaws in a product's primary design to support an untended repurposing.
I guess I don’t see how allowing some phone owners to root their devices introduces security flaws for those who don’t. Maybe there’s something I’m missing here.
A NAS is just an example, here's a better one; I love to use my old phones as wall mounted displays and controls for home assistant, or as remote music players plugged in to some speakers that I can hook into in music assistant. Some of my old phones are more than capable of this hardware wise but are locked to older versions of android and can't run anything built for a newer version, so they end up as ewaste intstead.
I think my next phone is going to be a fairphone or something for this reason.
You can do this but you have to remove the battery and hook up the circuitry to external power. This practically turns the phone into a glorified SBC. It may still be worth it since there's more of a mass market for phones than SBCs (and phones come with lots of extra hardware components that can be useful) but it's not that huge of a win.
None of those are even remotely reasonable enough to be a higher priority design criteria than preventing little old ladies from unknowingly installing malware.
> This study showed that discontinuing and interrupting GLP-1RA treatment could erode and might reverse the cardiovascular benefits of the drug in a duration dependent manner, increasing the risk of cardiovascular events.
emphasis mine
reply