The policy is concise and well bounded. It seems to me to assert that you cannot safely assign attribution of authorship of software code that you think was ge

The policy is concise and well bounded. It seems to me to assert that you cannot safely assign attribution of authorship of software code that you think was generated algorithmically. I use the term algorithmic because I think it is stronger than "AI lol". I note they use terms like AI code generator in the policy, which might be just as strong but looks to me as unlikely to becoming a useful legal term (its hardly "a man on the Clapham omnibus"). They finish with this, rather reasonable flourish: "The policy we set now must be for today, and be open to revision. It's best to start strict and safe, then relax." No doubt they do get a load of slop but they seem to want to close the legal angles down first and attribution seems a fair place to start off. This play book looks way better than curl's.