I've said this before, but I hope the issue isn't infringement per se, but that the produced code isn't automatically GPL'ed. The author argues that machine gen

I've said this before, but I hope the issue isn't infringement per se, but that the produced code isn't automatically GPL'ed. The author argues that machine generated code isn't copyrighted and this is good because it essentially fits the "data wants to be free" mentality, but I'd say tell that to the people who use it. Will they, after using something derived from open source, have to open source their code? No, they won't. If anything, this finally provides closed source developers with what they've always wanted, a means to rip open source code without having to return contributions. Julia Reda hints at that last bit as being an issue but only in a parenthetical. To the author, that literally is the whole point. Do people not remember the Free Software vs. Open Source debate? Or GPL vs BSD? The requirement that derived works also be free is literally the important bit in Free Software. This only fits the mentality of "data wanting to be free" if your model of that idea includes the permissive sensibility and doesn't care about actually changing the state of things, which is making free software more widely used in the world over proprietary software.