No.

Uhm you sent the french variant

https://fsfe.org/news/2026/news-20260825-01.en.html

An LLM, being a large database derived mechanically from its training data, seems to meet the definition of “derived work” as exists in most copyright legislation.

The output from an LLM, through the inference process, is also mechanically derived from that training data.

Lawmakers might try writing exceptions to please a stock market eagerly baying for hyperscaler growth. Despite that, it seems entirely viable that the copyright, held by humans on the training data fed to the LLM, continue to hold in the output derived from that input.

People saying it's “obvious the output has no copyright”, or people who act as though it's all free from any claim by the humans who wrote the works used as training data, are just showing their ignorance, it seems to me.

Ethics aside yes... Right up until an llm directly quotes something from its training set. Then all hell breaks loose. Good luck figuring out when that happens.

The rest of the time, I suspect most models act like "distinct from copyrighted material generation engines" and might even enjoy parody rights. That said, I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

The short answer: Legally, maybe. Ethically, no.

The absolute irony of wanting to copyright code using copyright-infringing LLMs.

It is not copyrightable. This is already settled law.

my take is that either it IS copyrightable and thus every single fucking piece of LLM-written code is a copyright violation of biblical proportions (because it's trained on everything), or it isn't copyrightable and thus effectively unusable for open source things

I do a lot of "vibe coding" but just put my stuff out with MIT or GPL depending, its mostly just stuff for me and I have no intention of trying to monetize the code itself.

Though I'm a weirdo and don't have a profit motive aside from living a moderate life and making useful things for myself.

I feel like in general too many things are created for the sole reason of trying to generate profit and it bastardizes everything, though I get it, look at the world we live in.

Edit: Also been trying to move away from Copilot/ChatGPT and have expanded my homelab enough to be able to get really competent use out of open source models.

Qwen3.8 27b is pretty damn good when I was used to using Copliot Raptor (god that model was rough but still least free...) or constantly running out of quota on ChatGPT

I also have always been the techy nerd people went to for help, so I have a lot of troubleshooting and general "how programs work" knowledge that helps me steer design, took some OOC classes and such over the years just could never get over the hump to actually write myself so LLMs have been so transformative to me.

LLM code must be GPLv3, or whatever is the most protective/restrictive license used in the training dataset code.

The most interesting bit to me:

However, legal problems can also arise when the tool reproduces something that is already copyrighted, or at least closely enough to be legally actionable. This can be a concern with tools that have been trained on datasets that include copyrighted materials, and the likelihood of it happening shifts depending on a number of factors, including the ways in which the tool has been prompted, as well as the parameters used for the tool’s training model.

In such situations, the reproduction of copyrighted material (as well as its distribution or subsequent publication) constitutes copyright infringement. Generally in most jurisdictions, copyright infringement is a strict liability act: this means that the intention to commit copyright infringement is not necessary to establish whether or not the infringer is at fault. In other words, “I did not know that the LLM copied/reproduced this work” is not a valid defence against copyright infringement.

Liability for copyright infringement, if discovered, generally falls on the party who distributes it, which would be the user and not the creator of the LLM in question. Nevertheless, the traditional understanding of copyright infringement is also being challenged by the rise of AI technologies. For example, in the ongoing case of Author’s Guild et al v OpenAI, the US courts are still evaluating arguments about whether the production of copyrighted works in outputs should be considered “derivative works”, or merely replications. Until we have more legal certainty, it is worthwhile to keep these considerations in mind when using the various LLMs available to the public.

short answer, no.

long answer,