Dear Senator Becker & FIXME-YOUR-STATE-SENATOR-IF-YOU-HAVE-ONE,

**Re: California AI Transparency Act amendment under consideration in SB
1000**

I am aware that you have received a letter campaign from a number of
generative AI companies — including GitHub (a subsidiary of Microsoft),
Mozilla, and various others — claiming that §22757.3(b) (as to be amended by
SB 1000) is in conflict with core principles of open source licenses.

I am a proud member of and contributor to the open source community for
FIXME-YEARS years. I am familiar with the arguments that these companies have
brought forward, and as a concerned citizen of California, I must draw to
your attention that it appears these companies are purposely misunderstanding
open source licensing in an effort to oppose legislation they do not like.

First, none of these companies currently release any end-to-end generative AI
system that is licensed under an open source license.  Second, the provisions
found in §22757.1--2,3(a) do not contradict any requirements currently found
in open source licenses. Finally, even the open source licenses with the
heaviest requirements (namely, *copyleft* licenses such as the General Public
License (“GPL”)) already account for situations like the California AI
Transparency Act in GPLv2§7 and GPLv3§12.

If you need further policy input on these laws, I would be glad to talk to
your office, and also encourage you to contact the 501(c)(3) non-profit
charity called Software Freedom Conservancy — who have knowledgeable open source
policy licensing staffers available.

While anyone familiar with technology and open source policy would have some
tweaks or ideas to share about improvement of the drafting of SB 1000 (as
would I), I am writing to assure you and your colleagues that there appear to
be no fatal flaws in the drafting with regard to open source. In fact, I
thank the California Senate for working toward legislation that will make
these generative AI systems more transparent, and consumer-friendly.

Sincerely,

J. Hobbyist