Is there a license like AGPL for datasets and machine learning models? The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requirement: if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the modified version running there. A lot of machine learning relies on fine-tuning existing models. Is there a license comparable to AGPL designed for datasets and machine learning models? That is, is there a license that if I publish a dataset under it, anyone who trains models with that license must also release their models under such license? ... And requires that any extensions or refinements to the dataset used in training their models must also be published under said license? ... And requires that any models fine-tuned from models that were trained on even one data element from my dataset be published under this license? I suppose if alot of data were under this sort of license, it might provide a caveat to require complex models like gpt-3 to be publically released if OpenAI had accidently trained on a corpus under this license instead of only offering them as a paid black-box service.
The problem is that open source licenses incl AGPL have legal force because copyright prevents copying + modifying software by default (software is treated as a “literary work” and therefore enjoys copyright protection). But copyright on datasets and ML models is very different – if it is even recognized at all. Thus, similar copyleft techniques would only work in particular jurisdictions. For example, the EU recognizes “database rights”. A copyleft license that accounts for this is CC-BY-SA-4.0, meaning that in an EU context, databases based on the original database would have to use the same license. However, database rights are not recognized in the US (facts are not copyrightable, and the “sweat of the brow” doctrine is not recognized). Thus, the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license would not have any copyleft effect with respect to databases in an US context. Independently of copyright in the database as a whole, the data in the database might be copyrighted material, for example if the database contains text or images, complicating matters further. Machine learning models derived from a data set are much more difficult. Clearly, ML models that have been trained are not a creative work and are therefore not eligible for independent copyright protection. At most, it can be argued that the model is an automatically transformed version of the input data, so that copyright in the input data implies copyright in the model.1 Perhaps hyperparameter choices could reflect some creative input. This is very much an active topic of debate. Given this uncertainty, it would be impossible to create a public license that works reliably. 1. An interesting discussion topic is the potential effect on Microsoft's Copilot ML model which was also trained on GPL-licensed source code. Instead of deriving force from copyright law, it would be possible to impose conditions via a contract, i.e. EULA-like terms that only provide access to the material after the terms have been accepted. But again, this is difficult. Contract law differs wildly between jurisdictions. For example, a contract is defined by the “meeting of minds” in some jurisdictions; by offer, acceptance, and consideration in others. But how does such a contract ensure appropriate consideration? How can acceptance be ensured if the material is publicly available? For these reasons, I think that unless broad international agreement emerges about IP protections for machine learning models, such a copyleft system for ML models is impossible. It is worth noting that the lack of such protections is probably quite good for innovation and research, since researchers are free to improve each other's work without legal concerns. The idea of copyleft is a hack to subvert the “everything is forbidden by default” system of copyright, but “everything is allowed by default” might be better.2 2. To continue the Microsoft Copilot example: some copyleft advocates like Bradley M Kuhn are sceptical about Copilot's GPL compliance, but remind us that copyleft maximalism means copyright maximalism, and that this is not the goal of open source. https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/feb/03/github-copilot-copyleft-gpl/
The GPL does not explicitly specify a time within which the source code must be provided, which probably means a &quot;reasonable time&quot; is allowed. What is &quot;reasonable&quot; would eventually be evaluated by a court, if the matter ever got that far. But please note that only the copyright holder (or the holder's authorized agent) can sue for infringement. The license does not give other people a right to sue for infringement, and I doubt that any license could grant such a right. One could inform the copyright holder who could sue, but the holder need not sue, and undertaking such a suit would involve expense, time, and effort. Whether the offer to provide the source constitutes a binding agreement is not clear, and may well vary in different jurisdictions. The question does not state any particular jurisdiction.
For the GPL &quot;family&quot; of open source licenses, the answer is no. The GPL FAQ answers a closely related question: I'd like to license my code under the GPL, but I'd also like to make it clear that it can't be used for military and/or commercial uses. Can I do this? (#NoMilitary) No, because those two goals contradict each other. The GNU GPL is designed specifically to prevent the addition of further restrictions. GPLv3 allows a very limited set of them, in section 7, but any other added restriction can be removed by the user. More generally, a license that limits who can use a program, or for what, is not a free software license. I'd also recommend looking into &quot;Why programs must not limit the freedom to run them&quot; (the page linked by the FAQ). Stallman there argues (among other lines) that copyright is about limiting, well, copies rather than running the program. Similar to limiting the production of copies of a book as opposed to restricting what you are allowed to do with the information contained in the book. (I may add: or restricting who is allowed to read it.) Also, &quot;Imagine selling pens with conditions about what you can write with them.&quot; (So this is basically the FSF's position) The OSI definition of what requirements a software license must meet in order to be considered open source by them has relevant clauses: Free Redistribution (though this says that anyone can distribute the software, it does not directly talk about restricting to whom the software may be given) No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The OSI has a newsletter post &quot;Open Source responds to the Russia-Ukraine war: First thoughts from the Executive Director&quot;, which links to a further discussion on the topic. This is more about politics and ethics than legal questions. However, I think it's relevant in 2 ways: For the situation at hand: They point out that while the open source definitions do not allow the license to have such restrictions, there is nothing that forces you (or a repository provider) to serve &quot;customers&quot; from all regions worldwide. I.e., geoblocking downloads is not prohibited by the FOSS licenses. It does show that there is a discussion on licenses that are somewhat more restrictive than the current open source definitions. As David Siegel points out, there's nothing to keep you from putting such restrictions into a proprietary license. And if there are sufficiently many people who want to do that, we may see &quot;more restricted open source&quot; licenses in the future. (IANAL, but I'd expect there may be limits to what can be restricted in a boilerplate license wrt. anti-discrimination laws.) Independently of what the license allows, people are anyways bound by general law, e.g. sanctions.
Wikipedia is the Licensor who are granting you the license, thus in the text you quoted: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor the manner specified by Wikipedia in the link you gave is the way you must attribute the work. When a person contributes content to a Wikimedia project, they agree to license it under the CC-BY-SA-3.0 license, but they also agree to be attributed &quot;in any of the following fashions... i. [through] hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the article to which you contributed (since each article has a history page that lists all authors and editors)&quot; (see Wikimedia Foundation, &quot;Policy:Terms of Use — 7. Licensing of Content&quot;). See section 1(f) of the License used for the definition of the Licensor
Ultimately, these terms would have to be interpreted by a court in order to get clarity. But the phrasing “source or binary form” should likely be understood as “not just source form, but any form of the software”. The BSD license family does not have different conditions for different forms of the software, so it is not necessary to understand what precisely a binary form is – just whether a software is in “source or binary form”. As far as I can see, minified or bundled software are a “source or binary form”. The BSD licenses' attribution requirements will apply. There are licenses that do make a distinction. For example, the Boost license is BSD-like with respect to the source code, but exempts binary forms from its attribution requirements. But Boost provides a clearer definition: “machine-executable object code generated by a source language processor”. The GPL family also makes a distinction, because it always requires the source code to be made available. The GPLv3 defines the source code as the “preferred form for making modifications”, and object code (binary form) as any non-source form.
The Apache 2.0 license purports to be irrevocable, but it also presupposes that the supposed licensor has the right to grant permission to copy. In this case, that is untrue, so there never was a proper license and nothing to revoke (the copyright owner grants permission in the form of "a license" which is a legal abstraction, that normally is specified in the license document). An end-user snared by this illegal license might attempt to sue the author because of the legal screw-up but paragraph 9 says that the supposed licensor cannot be held liable. In this case, though, "licensor" is defined not as the person who hands you the license document, but as the copyright owner. So it's the employer who would be not liable under the terms of the document (but since the employer had nothing to do with the license, it's as though the license never existed). The end-user is a secondary infringer (the employee is the primary infringer, in illegally distributing the material). Under US law, that doesn't matter, the user is still liable. Under UK law, secondary infringement includes the element that you have to have reason to know that the copy is infringing, which in the scenario that you describe is not the case.
But while some libraries allow unrestricted use of their Public Domain content, others do not and limit the use of their copies to Non-Commercial use. It is my understanding that NC only applies to the digital copy, not the work itself. Your understanding is correct. An ancient text, or one long out of copyright, does not get new protection by creating an image of the text. At most the image itself is protected, not the underlying text. In the US, and other jurisdictiosn that follow the rule of the 1999 Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp case there is no copyright protection on the image because it has no original content. Some EU courts have indicated that they will be following the logic of bridgeman. To the best of my knowledge no EU decision grants copyright protection to an otherwise out-of-copyright work because of its presence in a digital library or collection. However, if a person gained access to a digital library or collection subject to a TOS agreement which includes &quot;no commercial use&quot; terms and then published a text from it commercially, that person might be subject to a breech of contract or similar suit by the library. Such a suit would need to include proof of damages.
There is no case law as yet However, the most likely situation is that there is no copyright in the original works because they are computer-generated. There is certainly copyright in the code that created the art but the output of that code, the art itself, would probably not be subject to copyright. Copyright only exists in art created by humans. The US Ninth Circuit has held that animals cannot create copyrighted works. Subsequently, the US Copyright office has rejected applications for registration (a prerequisite to a suit in the US) of computer-generated art because it “lacks the human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim.” While this position has not been tested in the courts, I don't think they are any more likely to grant copyright to a program than they were to a monkey. What's going on? The OP states that there is litigation: there isn't. What there is, is a DCMA takedown request from Larva Labs. If this is complied with that will be the end of the matter; if it isn't then there may be litigation. However, before Larva Labs could sue CryptoPunks in the US they would first need to get a writ of mandamus to force the USCO to register it. If they try and fail then there will be a legally binding court decision that Larva Labs don't own the copyright in any of their computer-generated art. Which kills their business model and, presumably, them. This would be a very high-risk move. They may choose to sue in a jurisdiction where registration is not a prerequisite, however, that court would still need to be satisfied that there was a copyright that could be breached. So that's just a different take on the same problem. I have ignored the issue of NFTs as these are legally problematic in their own right and irrelevant to the main question. However, the NFT and the artwork are not the same thing.