Taggart14h ago

I have what may be a very ignorant question: if model-generated code may not be copyrighted due to a requirement of human authorship (current US Copyright Office policy), does it therefore follow that model-generated code may not be licensed under any terms whatsoever? Meaning anything from MIT to GPLv3?

I recognize no answers here would constitute legal advice, but I would love to hear from legal experts on this.

Show threadfhekland14h ago
@mttaggart https://www.copyrighted.com/blog/licensing-vs-copyright#frequently-asked-questions
Licensing vs Copyright: Key Differences Creators Must Know

Understand the distinctions between licensing vs copyright. This article explores how licensing agreements affect copyright ownership and usage rights.

Copyright RPM
Show threadTaggart14h ago

@fhekland

Can you license something without owning the copyright?

No, you need to own the copyright or have permission from the copyright holder to license the work.

So if no copyright is possible, no license is possible?

Show threadSnoopJ

@mttaggart @fhekland more like: a license is a grant of rights by a copyright holder, but if you don't HAVE rights, there's nothing to be given and such a license declaration is legal nonsense.

It's somewhat akin to declaring an incompatible license that takes you out of the bounds of a dependency. You didn't relicense that dependency because they aren't your rights to grant. The main difference is that *no* such holder exists (leaving aside the "human authorship" matter which is going to be a mess).

(Oblig: IANAL)

7:23pmWeb