all 6 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 9 points 3 hours ago

What did open source do to deserve that?

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 3 hours ago

    All code should be open source and public domain.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 hours ago

    Yes please but that's also not how copyrights work.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 1 hour ago

    Nice, poisoning the training data for future models 👍

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago

    Hallucinated Open Shit Software (HOSS)

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 58 minutes ago

    I disagree. Copyleft is built on top of copyright. Code generated with an LLM built from plundered sources should not enjoy copyright at all.

  • source
  • 14 comments in c/technology@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 34 points 2 hours ago* (5 children)

    Imagine if any work made by AI was free use, public domain, uncopyrightable. Bet that would change the equation for corporations a bit.

    Make a movie using AI? Anyone can make copies and distribute them freely.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 hours ago (4 children)

    I'm pretty sure, at least in the USA, there have been rulings that there must be human authorship for something to have copyright protection. This has happened both in the courts and the US Copyright Office has spoken on the matter as well. If you're interested in one of the court cases I'd suggest looking up Thaler v. Perlmutter.

    There was a stipulation though, any human made parts of a work is copyrightable, so in your scenario of copying a movie would probably still be illegal unless the entire movie was created by gen ai, but it would seem that you could probably cut the gen ai bits and release and reuse them without violating any copyright, but I'm also not a lawyer so...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago (2 children)

    Your right, but it should apply to the whole work. We need to Stop fucking around and put the brakes on them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 hour ago (1 child)

    I'm not 100% sure how I feel about that take. Part of me agrees, but also part of me doesn't. Especially with big projects like a movie it could be easy for one person to slip in a tiny bit of ai generated work and now the whole movie loses its copyright? Seems like a bit too much of an overcorrection to me.

    I do strongly agree that we need to hit the brakes hard and really work through a lot of the issues gen ai has brought up.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 2 hours ago (1 child)

    And pay the rights holders from the training materials.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • I think you would be suprised how much of the code that is written by AI is solving the same problems every company solves, and is totally useless outside the company. Very little of it is really novel or valuable. And that is the code not being written by AI.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago

    Everything is foss if you try hard enough.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago (2 children)

    Except generated code in a lot of places simply cannot be copyrighted for starters (there is degree this can vary from place to place, from having some edits to being just a small part of the entire project)

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 hour ago (1 child)

    Source? I'm pretty sure that's true for images, but copywrite law can vary greatly depending on medium, and context.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago

    I’m pretty sure that’s true for images

    Threshold of originality doesn't distinguish between images and code. Either it's human creative work or it's not. Chore isn't creative work, so the amount of invested time doesn't count.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago*

    This is exactly how it should work. Any code copied from GNU GPL code should legally also be GNU GPL, no ifs, ands or buts.

    Oh, your training data set contains GPL code? Guess what, all the output from that model is now GPL. It's your burden to prove that your training data does not contain any GPL code.

  • source
  • 13 comments in c/programming@programming.dev view that post
    [–] 40 points 3 hours ago (4 children)

    Good news! It is! It’s actually public domain. If you get ahold of some AI generated code, you can do whatever you want with it.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 hours ago* (2 children)

    I'm a lawyer that specializes in this area of IP law. It is true that code generated by an LLM lacks a human author and is therefore not copyright eligible material. However, there are a few nuances that technically make your statement somewhat incorrect.

    One, the code can still be sold or licensed as personal property. However, once somebody gets their hands on that code, there few things stopping them from re-releasing it for free and entering it into the public domain. Even a contract prohibiting such transfer will likely fail due to a small provision in US copyright law.

    Two, this code can still be protected as a trade secret, so don't think you can create code at work and just freely distribute it if your employer has asked you to keep it confidential.

    There are a number of other possible nuances, but those are two that I see come up most often in my practice.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 3 hours ago

    All code should be open source, period.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 3 hours ago

    and in many jurisdictions, it probably is if the source code has been published at all; the article correctly explains that copyright requires human authorship and creativity

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 2 hours ago*

    (Not a lawyer) Everything AI made is stolen, therefore contracts, and so copyright, are void. Right?

    Contracts that are at all unlawful are unenforceable and therefore void. But what about copyright?

    If, in the middle of the night, you break into a McDonald's and then call it McFelfs, and in the same night, steal everything out of a Starbucks and sell food and coffee with scratched out logos out of your McFelfs, does it become legally yours?

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 1 hour ago

    I believe that the AGPL is the most correct license for LLM-generated software.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 hours ago

    Make it open source, publish it on public sites, and allow the next generation of LLMs to be trained on it.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 59 minutes ago

    Good in principle, hard to enforce.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago

    Proprietary code is rarely shared to the public. An enforced Creative Commons license won’t do much on this regard.

  • source
  • Public, proprietary code will increasingly become scarce as everything is reverse engineered.

  • source
  • 3 comments in c/programming@lemmy.ml view that post
    [–] 12 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

    All AI-generated source should be ineligible for copyright protection at all, just like is the case for AI-generated art.

    But guess how that's going to pan out when it gets to court.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 hours ago (1 child)

    At least at the moment in the US, the copyright office makes no distinction between visual art and LLM slop, in that neither is eligible for protection. The courts have so far upheld this, though there haven't been any "blockbuster"-level cases yet.

    So for the moment, AI-generated code is ineligible for protection.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment