> Is the change technical or legal/philosophical? You could call this > a Turing test for copyright. This is not a new issue at all. I remember that back in the day in order to legally reverse engineer a computer program, companies had to set up two separate teams of developers. One team reads the code and writes documentation. The second team reads the documentation and writes the new code. It was crucial that no member of the second team sees the original code in order to rule out any copyright issues.
> Processing of experiences into expert opinion is IMHO not directly > comparable with compilation of source to a binary. DSFG does not only apply to programming languages and program binaries. For all data blobs in Debian packages, it is preferred to include the scripts that generate it, for images it is preferred to have the SVG code over the generated pixel graphics, etc. For a reason, the relevant licenses do not define “source code” by being in a programming language readable by humans. They define it like this (example from GPLv3): > The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work > for making modifications to it. In that definition, training data is quite obviously relevant. No one tweaks neural network model weights manually. Compare this to the previously mentioned example of S-boxes in cryptography. They are small and usually created manually. Regards Stephan
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
