Linux
Welcome to c/linux!
Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!
Rules:
-
Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
-
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
-
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
-
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
-
No NSFW adult content
-
Follow general lemmy guidelines.
view the rest of the comments
I don't think they believe that; I think they either (a) think a human lawyer would understand it during the class-action suit after the the AI scrapes it anyway, or (b) more likely, they're doing it to make a point as a matter of principle.
Either seems pretty fucking reasonable, to be honest!
It's just noise. Assuming US jurisdiction where many of the AI companies are based; either AI scraping is fair use, in which case the license is meaningless, or AI scraping is not fair use, in which case they already have the copyright.
What? How would an AI company have copyright over @[email protected]'s comment? That makes no sense at all.
It's the other way around, onlinepersona already has the copyright. Asserting that the copyright is non-commercial changes nothing. The default is non-commercial. The default is nobody can use it. They are applying a more permissive copyright than the default.
Ah, I see what you mean now.