@struberg even more so, yesterday I had a conversation with a developer that believed that becausee he paid for the GenAI tool then he could do what he wanted and that this licensing thing is not an issue 🤯

As if just because you paid money you could disregard the ToS of the tool/service.

@struberg @nikolausf it doesn’t have to be trained with lots of GPL code. Just a single entry ingested is enough. That’s the virality of said license.

Anyhow, this show that we’re navigating with uncertainty and that’s dangerous.

@struberg I think it’s worse than just generating code that may closely resemble the inputs. Just ingesting code is enough.

IIRC the engineers working on J9 could only rely on the spec to create their own JVM implementation, and were not allowed to look into the OpenJDK impl for ideas/inspiration, as that could taint the result.

If this is how humans behave with code licenses, why are LLMs treated differently?

@struberg this is the thing I’m uncertain about, if the license of the ingested data used for training is transitive or not. Either answer brings a host of issues and opportunities, but we seem to be operating as it didn’t matter at all.

Once law and regulation are in place we’ll know how to properly handle this situation. Myself, for now, I block any AI contributions to my FLOSS projects.