Cory DoctorowToday's threads (a thread)
Inside: Supreme Court saves artists from AI; and more!
Archived at: https://pluralistic.net/2026/03/03/its-a-trap/
1/
Tom MarbleThis post by @pluralistic
(Building upon
https://mamot.fr/@pluralistic/116095352501271369 )
is making me think about what it means to accept genAI code -- esp. in open source where contribution is often governed by an inbound=outbound rule. That means the inbound code must be licensed under the same copyright license as the project .That's not possible if there is no copyright (and neither is assignment under any CLA).
We can infer that any published software (open or proprietary) built with AI is not copyrightable.
Cory Doctorow (@[email protected])
@[email protected] https://pluralistic.net/2025/12/05/pop-that-bubble/
Chris Markiewicz@tmarble @pluralistic Public domain status isn't viral. It is possible to create copyrighted works that use large excerpts of public domain material: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pride_and_Prejudice_and_Zombies. I think license violations of training data and quality/quantity of code are bigger threats to open source than worries of having your license invalidated.
