these licenses are irrevocable and you can't just "backport" additional restrictions
https://creativecommons.org/faq/#what-happens-if-the-author-...
For CC By-Sa works the new one might also not be strictly less permissive, because applying the restriction should allow people deriving derivatives to do the same via the share alike clause when they previously couldn't (though I didn't actually check the wording this person is using so this is just assuming the restriction is applied like I think it ought to be).
Another point is that any updates to existing works will only be available under the new licence. This might seem irrelevant to drawings and paintings, but the author has on occasion made changes to his older works for one reason or another, so at least the resulting newer versions would be protected by the additional terms (assuming they’re legally in the clear, of course).
AFAICT the only thing that could possibly change this is if he explicitly passed his "moral rights" to another person, but obviously that doesn't apply here. CC-BY 4.0 contains this clause, but I don't think you can just be made to "agree to waive" these rights, as "to the extent possible" hints at:
Moral rights, such as the right of integrity, are not licensed under this Public License, nor are publicity, privacy, and/or other similar personality rights; however, to the extent possible, the Licensor waives and/or agrees not to assert any such rights held by the Licensor to the limited extent necessary to allow You to exercise the Licensed Rights, but not otherwise.
Copyright was fully intended to allow authors to control how their work is used.
Copyright was created to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. The means to that are arbitrary and we have chosen a bad system that creates dictators who can create complex rules that diminish our cultural commons.
“Artists gotta eat but not programmers”. Commoditize your complements at the societal level.
He clearly states that for him, abandoning Linux is ‘not possible right now’. Which makes sense, because GNU/Linux has been the free user-friendly alternative. What else do people expect him to do? Jump ship to BSD or GNU/Hurd and expect his entire workflow to work perfectly on day one? Start painting using pencil and paper, completely changing the nature of his work from day to day?
Moreover, if Linux, Ubuntu, or Debian (I’m not quite up to date on that) have accepted AI contributions, it’s because their maintainers have decided to accept them. It’s not like David has been vibecoding his tools to replace human-made software; he just can’t be expected to flawlessly work around everyone else who decides to do that. Contrasting him exercising control over his own work to stifle AI and choosing to (at least temporarily) tolerate others not doing the same with theirs (that he in turn makes use of) as some kind of hypocrisy is in extremely bad taste.
By his own standards then, I can say “Well I’m ok to use ComfyUI because its developers have explicitly said it’s fine to use with common AI models”. Like his Linux argument, it completely ignores what IP those models were trained on.
He takes the position: “My art is released Creative Commons except for AI”. I expect many open source programmers feel the same way, but he’s quite happy not to even discuss that and instead take the position that the maintainers said it’s fine.
By his standards, as I understand them, AI should respect and preserve the copyright of the data it’s trained on. Since that is not the current practice, he doesn’t want AI training on his works or generating derivative art, and prefers to avoid AI-generated works in general (including software). I don’t see any discrepancy or hypocrisy in that, nor do I see how your ComfyUI example relates. A clarification would be much appreciated!
> he’s quite happy not to even discuss that and instead take the position that the maintainers said it’s fine.
Where does he take that position?
Not a great philosophy when you realize that the set of things we all love is probably empty. Well, maybe it contains kittens.
A great number of doctors, lawyers, artists, programmers. etc donate their time doing professional level work to worthy causes. Whatever anyone does with AI is not in the same category.
“I don't like their policy, but I accept it as it is because it is not possible right now for me to paint on something else.”
To give a comparable example, I hate proprietary software, but I still run some of it on my computer, because avoiding all proprietary software everywhere is extremely impractical in current day and age. You can take a meaningful stance against something without being Stallman levels of principled.
For one thing, the United States has it but it only applies to the kinds of things a 6y/o says when asked "what is art?" which is pretty funny (paintings, drawings, sculptures, photographs), and would exclude David's work. I wonder if he's been webcomicing long enough to remember the days when drawing tablets were a violation of the sacred...
For another, "I assert my rights" sounds like some SovCit tomfoolery like we have in the ~Commonwealth, but is indeed a thing! Pretty funny as well, I think.
More relevantly, these 'moral' rights (ugh) seem to... well, I'll just link France's insanely nice statute site: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT0000... (Article L121-6 of the Intellectual Property Code). The relevant clause is the first:
> L'auteur jouit du droit au respect de son nom, de sa qualité et de son oeuvre.
> ~=> The author has the right to respectful, accurate attribution (both name and role), and the right to respectful treatment of their work (both physically and in spirit).
There are carve-outs for parody and use among a "family circle", but they're superceeded in turn by a clause on the author's "legitimate interests". Unless that has some special french meaning (e.g. only economic?), this is all down to "does a French judge think AI is legitimately hated." Given the vibes I'm getting from the precedents, that seems very, very likely.
(They tried to pass a law once to make that official, but it failed in the EU -- will surely try again soon, with the Pope's support)
TL;DR: David's almost definitely correctly understanding the law here. That's... that's wild. Honestly sucks to know that even my #1 emmigration dream is so thoroughly infested with intellectual property laws :(