3 ms·

Yay, the software development industry is saved! (only partly /s) Not that I thought AI would be writing decent code for a while yet, but the fact that AI-gene

Yay, the software development industry is saved! (only partly /s) Not that I thought AI would be writing decent code for a while yet, but the fact that AI-generated code can't be copyrighted (and therefore licensed[0]) is going to create problems. It'll be interesting where they draw the line with this, though: If the AI generates all the code, but then a human debugs it and alters it, is that copyright that can be owned? Does the entire code base then become copyrightable? If a human reverse-engineers uncoyrightable AI code, does that reverse-engineered code become copyrightable? If a human downloads someone else's uncopyrightable AI-generated code, and makes some changes to it, can they then claim copyright on that code? [0] Since the whole of software licensing rests on copyright, this is going to get tricky for licenses. How do we determine if a restrictive license has been added to uncopyrightable (and therefore unlicensable) code?

Kerrick 4y ago
> If the AI generates all the code, but then a human debugs it and alters it, is that copyright that can be owned? Does the entire code base then become copyrightable? I am not a lawyer and I did not research anything for this, but I'm under the impression that a derivative work of something in the public domain is itself copyrightable. If something isn't copyrightable, it's in the public domain. So, if you alter it sufficiently to create a derivative work, the altered form should be copyrightable. But the original would still be public domain. I think?
- datpiff 4y ago
  > derivative work of something in the public domain is itself copyrightable I don't think this is true in most of the world. Here's a UK referience: https://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p22_derivative_works https://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p22_derivative_work... "You cannot extend the duration of copyright in a work by creating a derivative work. If the original work is in the public domain, it will remain in the public domain; you cannot prevent anyone else using the same public domain work for their own purposes."
  - vidarh 4y ago
    What you've quoted directly agrees with the interpretation of the person you replied to.
  - andreareina 4y ago
    The derivative is subject to copyright, the original isn't. If I make a new translation of The Count of Monte Cristo I own the copyright to the translation but not to the original story etc.
- victorbjorklund 4y ago
  Yes, exactly. If you for example rewrite parts of Shakespeares Romeo and Juliette you have copyright on the changes you made. So the parts you didn't change are in the public domain while the parts that are changed you got the copyright for (assuming the changes reach the level of copyright and aren't just for example spelling errors). Same with code. If you extend a MIT library you have copyright to the changes you made but not the parts that aren't changed.
nextlevelwizard 4y ago
How do you determine if code is written by an AI?
- amon22 4y ago
  This does not really matter in practice. The risk of legal sanctions is too high for most businesses, they will follow the law. This is kind of similar to pirate software, businesses almost never use them even if they could definitely get away with it in most cases. The issue is that a single angry former employee is all it takes to make your life hell. This is even more true for large organizations where many people would know about the unlawful practice.
  - reset-password 4y ago
    In practice, the larger the organization the less likely the potential legal sanctions are to dissuade them. My observation has been that once an organization (in the US anyway) grows large enough it is in a special protected status where no real penalties can come to it and there is certainly no risk of exposure to criminal charges for the decision makers. Source: front page here every single day.
    - amon22 4y ago
      As someone who works for large enterprises: they are absolutely terrified of legal sanctions and pay huge amounts to contractors who can mitigate the risk. And sanctions do regularly happen, they are just not advertised on the HN frontpage I guess :)
  - nextlevelwizard 4y ago
    I have two thoughts about this. First is who cares about large corporations? Sure large corporations have the money to buy licensed software, but I know plenty of small-to-medium corporations that operate on pirated software. Second is your statement doesn't mean anything at all. Yes, you can enact a policy in your corporation that no one is allowed to use AI tools like Copilot to write code, but how do you monitor this? How do you know if some developer did use Copilot? This all feels like complete lip service with no actual force behind it. I am 100% sure that even my corporation's code base already contains stuff written with help of an AI, but there is also no question that the code is fully copyrighted.

Kerrick 4y ago

> If the AI generates all the code, but then a human debugs it and alters it, is that copyright that can be owned? Does the entire code base then become copyrightable? I am not a lawyer and I did not research anything for this, but I'm under the impression that a derivative work of something in the public domain is itself copyrightable. If something isn't copyrightable, it's in the public domain. So, if you alter it sufficiently to create a derivative work, the altered form should be copyrightable. But the original would still be public domain. I think?

datpiff 4y ago
> derivative work of something in the public domain is itself copyrightable I don't think this is true in most of the world. Here's a UK referience: https://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p22_derivative_works https://copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p22_derivative_work... "You cannot extend the duration of copyright in a work by creating a derivative work. If the original work is in the public domain, it will remain in the public domain; you cannot prevent anyone else using the same public domain work for their own purposes."
- vidarh 4y ago
  What you've quoted directly agrees with the interpretation of the person you replied to.
- andreareina 4y ago
  The derivative is subject to copyright, the original isn't. If I make a new translation of The Count of Monte Cristo I own the copyright to the translation but not to the original story etc.
victorbjorklund 4y ago
Yes, exactly. If you for example rewrite parts of Shakespeares Romeo and Juliette you have copyright on the changes you made. So the parts you didn't change are in the public domain while the parts that are changed you got the copyright for (assuming the changes reach the level of copyright and aren't just for example spelling errors). Same with code. If you extend a MIT library you have copyright to the changes you made but not the parts that aren't changed.

nextlevelwizard 4y ago

How do you determine if code is written by an AI?

amon22 4y ago
This does not really matter in practice. The risk of legal sanctions is too high for most businesses, they will follow the law. This is kind of similar to pirate software, businesses almost never use them even if they could definitely get away with it in most cases. The issue is that a single angry former employee is all it takes to make your life hell. This is even more true for large organizations where many people would know about the unlawful practice.
- reset-password 4y ago
  In practice, the larger the organization the less likely the potential legal sanctions are to dissuade them. My observation has been that once an organization (in the US anyway) grows large enough it is in a special protected status where no real penalties can come to it and there is certainly no risk of exposure to criminal charges for the decision makers. Source: front page here every single day.
  - amon22 4y ago
    As someone who works for large enterprises: they are absolutely terrified of legal sanctions and pay huge amounts to contractors who can mitigate the risk. And sanctions do regularly happen, they are just not advertised on the HN frontpage I guess :)
- nextlevelwizard 4y ago
  I have two thoughts about this. First is who cares about large corporations? Sure large corporations have the money to buy licensed software, but I know plenty of small-to-medium corporations that operate on pirated software. Second is your statement doesn't mean anything at all. Yes, you can enact a policy in your corporation that no one is allowed to use AI tools like Copilot to write code, but how do you monitor this? How do you know if some developer did use Copilot? This all feels like complete lip service with no actual force behind it. I am 100% sure that even my corporation's code base already contains stuff written with help of an AI, but there is also no question that the code is fully copyrighted.