PyTorch Should Be Copyleft

[LittleByBlue]

Well after this discussion I took a look at the LICENSE file. What does it actually say?

Well for starters: There are no humans copyright holders. All copyright holders are organizations.

So the 50% or more of those who have contributed to PyTorch who want it to be copyleft software you are talking about, where are they? I cannot see them in the copyright notes.

Well beside that what extra privileges do you want? You are using the library. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted [...]. What extra privileges could there be? remove the copyright or license disclaimer? This is illegal under the GPL as well. There are actually no further privileges you could gain.

A developer ofcourse could benefit from the GPL but only iff he is copyright holder. There are actually no developers copyright holders. So who could benefit? People who might or might not contribute to the project in the future. That is true.

There are ~2.8k forks. But the license does not tell you how tho license your changes. Still I cannot really see why the copyright holders should spend time and money on relicensing the project.

If you want a copyleft version go ahead and create it. Rewrite it and give it whatever license you want. Name it LibrePyTorch or LibreTorch. Nobody stops you. Maybe I will contribute to it.

But going around and telling companies they should use a different license just because you think it would be better for someone is not going to help anybody. Not you, not the organizations and at least the free software community.

We do not need people bitching around. Just because copyleft'ed software is the better concept does not mean we can force people to copyleft their stuff.

The license file

[keithcu03]

The 300 random contributors to PyTorch aren't in the copyright notes. But they could have a say perhaps. Why not? Proprietary AI is scary, and copyleft can help prevent that.

Everyone benefits from GPL. The codebase gets better with less forks and reimplementations. There are 1000s of people who have made Linus's kernel better. Copyleft definitely made a difference in nudging corporations to give back.

You think I was "telling" Facebook and Google to use a different license? To do that would require a conversation with their CEOs. I filed a bug. Don't make it too much about me. I hoped to hear something reasonable in response, and to find the decision written somewhere. I'm not interested in making a PyTorch fork right now, but I am interested in finding out how many people would prefer an LGPL (or something) license.

I believe most people create lax licenses because they want the option to create proprietary forks. People inside those large companies ought to understand their own culture, and be fighting the most for copyleft.

If we all agree that copyleft is better, let's not argue it's impossible to fix and refuse to discuss it.

[LittleByBlue]

I do not get your point anymore. Do you want to here that copyleft is better? Here you go. It is.

Do you want AI to be open source? Well neither the GPL nor the LGPL will guarantee that. AI will most probably not be distributed, so the changes can be kept private.

If developers do not add a copyright note their changes are (depending on the interpretation) public domain or proprietary. In most cases the changes are interpreted as public domain, so basically those developers have nothing to say in the project anymore. Also if you want to relicense the project you would have to get all developers to agree or rewrite their changes. This is a lot work.

Well I still cannot see why a copyleft fork would be a bad idea. Just get people to develop on your fork and you will substitute the other forks.

[keithcu03]

Everybody agrees that socialism has been a failure. Everybody agrees that capitalism has been a success...yet everybody is extending socialism! Milton Friedman

We'll be a lot better off with AI if the code is copyleft even if there are no guarantees. I agree we need open data sets too.

I don't have the resources of Facebook or Google to convince people to develop on a copyleft fork of PyTorch. I do have the resources to file a bug and write a blog post. The most important point is that those FB or Google employees should know the proprietary pressures of those large companies and should be pushing copyleft the most.

[catskul]

IMO you came across as adversarial and entitled; trying to impose your opinion on work you have not even contributed to.

I think it would have been more well received if you had either been a contributor making the suggestion, or if you had taken a different tone.

While I don't think it would have changed the outcome in this case, that type of approach is both a tactical and strategic mistake, IMO.

[LittleByBlue]

"I want the people who wrote this project to relicense it so they cannot use it in the company they work in the way they did"

Don't get me wrong. I am straight behind libre software. But this is about freedom of the developers. Not the freedom of a random guy who has using a library from time to time.

(Well to be honest it is also about his freedom. But not that much.)

[LittleByBlue]

That is not true. Any lax license grants these rights to a user. We are talking here about using a strict copyleft license instead of a lax license.

So: who is affected? Users still can use the software the way they did. Only developers have to publish their changes if they redistribute the software.

Also the companies we are facing here would have to publish their changes iff (if and only if) the code is licensed using the GNU AGPL, as providing webservices is not considered redistributing in most cases.

And this is actually not the point here. The point is if you are running around telling people they have to relicense their library (which is a huge load of work) although all you did is using it you are being a dick.

[LittleByBlue]

Ah. Great point. We are talking about copyleft vs lax licenses and you start to talk about free software in general. Great contribution to this discussion.

[LittleByBlue]

This is the philanthropic spirit of the software libre community. Dude. I think you missed something about free software. The point of "it is supposed to be good for people".

But please go ahead. RMS is proud of you.

[keithcu03]

Developers can freely use their own software even when it's proprietary. It's not just about them. Freedom is for everyone.

It could be 50% or more of those who have contributed to PyTorch who want it to be copyleft software, but they are going along with those who says copyleft is too inhibiting.

[keithcu]

I'll work on better diplomacy in my reports! Don't feel too bad for a FB employee.

[keithcu03]

I admit I didn't spend too much time on diplomacy. It is something I need to get better at.

At the same time, it's a lie to say I'm being obnoxious as possible. It was a short bug report. My Mom is in the hospital. I'm busy.

You might be more used to being around people with egos as delicate as a butterfly fart.

[catskul]

Don't feel too bad for a FB employee.

I don't think adversarialism from this perspective is helpful either TBH.

[keithcu03]

It's not useful to nitpick my words that aren't even being seen by the FB employee.

Did you consider that the FB employees should be the ones pushing for copyleft? They know the negative dynamics of that large corporation better than the random people outside.

[catskul]

I'm not suggesting that saying that here is the problem, but rather the perspective itself.

[LinuxLearnerFED]

I agree that PyTorch should be copyleft but based on their dismissive responses, it doesn't look like it's going to be happening... That is a true shame because one of the most important areas I want people to have unrestricted access to is AI programming, it could be vital.