Ariadne Conill 🐰
cool guess we need to start the alpine "are upstream projects with LLM contributions legal for us to ingest" conversation
my personal guess is no, if you were wondering.
Klaus FrankWell the best approach would probably be to say "no for now". But following recent court rulings (I think it was in the US), the answer could change to a "yes" as it appears that they see that any code generated with AI is basically public domain as copyright is for human generated work only.
@agowa338 I would like to see a respected organization like Conservancy give some guidance here
David GerardWell the latest court ruling I saw a few days ago was that when they used AI generated code in a codebase with a specific license that any code that was AI generated was public domain and that license didn't apply.
But you know, it is still quite young and both courts and politicians take time to find "a stable and predictable ruling", so...
Ben AvelingWith, say, art, if I take a photo of a painting, then there are two separate copyrights to deal with - the original copyright in the painting and the additional copyright in the photo. I own the 2nd, but not the 1st - if you want to reproduce my photo, you need two licences to do so, one from me, one from the original artist.
LLM output may not be copyright, but it shouldn't remove the copyright from everything the LLM ingested and regurgitated into its output.
@agowa338 @davidgerard @ariadne
LLM output may not be copyright, but it shouldn't remove the copyright from everything the LLM ingested and regurgitated into its output.
@agowa338 @davidgerard @ariadne
@BenAveling @davidgerard @ariadne
That wasn't part of the court ruling. Everything is still heavily in flux. So the only thing that is clear right now is that nothing is clear...