Raw LLM Responses

What's crazy though is there is no reason you can't have a PUBLIC (note: public, not private) github repo with a PROPRIETARY license. Now you would think if the license says "Proprietary trade secret etc. etc." just the act of making the source publicly available does not implicitly make the licensing Public Domain. In fact, quite the opposite - it seems the default licensing to be assumed if no license specified would be a proprietary one - ie, no right to use or distribute. So if the license clearly is proprietary (not implicit due to lack of license), you would think it would be a definite no no to use that source code to train AI or for any other purpose (other than inspecting it of course - which might be implicitly licensed on the basis that it is deliberately publicly available on github). I'd still want to see the right to view on github explicitly stated in the license though as I'd assume a proprietary licensed source code on github is probably either inadvertently publicly available, or deliberately posted maliciously (either whistle-blower or generic leak). So yeah, if you think from the perspective of "Publicly available proprietary information" then it seems obvious AI training on that information is illegal. Btw, it is not uncommon to have publicly available proprietary information - eg, Bibles, News articles etc. Just because you can read it online for free, doesn't automatically give you the right to do what you like with it.