4 ms·

It just means you're infringing the right of the code author and they can sue you (for money and stopping using their code, not for making your whole project GP

by em-bee 11mo ago

It just means you're infringing the right of the code author and they can sue you (for money and stopping using their code, not for making your whole project GPL). they can sue you and settle for whatever you will accept that makes them happy. if you lose then the alternative to not making your code GPL is to make your code disappear, that is you are no longer allowed to sell your product. consequently, if AI code is subject to the GPL then the rest of the codebase is too, or the alternative would be that the could not be distributed.

raincole 11mo ago
First of all, pure AI-generated code is uncopyrightable now. Uncopyrightable code can't be under GPL. Secondly, GPL can't "make your (proprietary) code disappear." Violating GPL is essentially just stealing code. One cannot distribute the version that includes stolen code. But they can remove the stolen part and replace it with their own code. Of course they still need to settle/pay for the previous infringement. GPL simply can't affect the copyright status of rest of the codebase, because it's a license, not a contract. It cannot restrict the user's right further than the copyright laws. Again, it's very common misunderstanding of GPL's "virality." It has been a several-decade long debate about whether GPL should be treated like a contract instead of a mere license, but there is no ruling giving it this special legal state (yet), at least in the US. [0]: https://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ https://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Legal_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Leg...
- em-bee 11mo ago
  First of all, pure AI-generated code is uncopyrightable now. Uncopyrightable code can't be under GPL. if AI generates something that is equal to existing code, then the license of that code applies. the AI generated product as a whole can't be copyrighted, but the portions that reproduce copyrighted code retain the original copyright. they can remove the stolen part and replace it with their own code sure, if they can do that, then they can distribute their code again. but until then they can't.
  - dragonwriter 11mo ago
    > if AI generates something that is equal to existing code, then the license of that code applies. No, it doesn't, if the generation is independent of the existing code. If a person using AI uses existing code and makes a literal copy of it, then, yes, the copyright (and any license offer applicable in the circumstances) of the existing code may apply (it may also not, the same as with copies of portions of code made by other means), and it's less than clear if (especially for small portions of code) that legally such a copy has been made when a work is in the training set. Copyright protects against copying. It doesn't protect against someone creating the same content by means other than copying.
    - LtWorf 11mo ago
      If I read harry potter and randomly rewrite it you think I have a chance against Rowling?
      - dragonwriter 11mo ago
        No, almost cerainly it would be practically impossible if you reproduced the entire work, on top of evidence that you had perused it, because it would be very hard to convince a trier of fact that the duplication really was coincidence rather than copying, but it might be a very different story if you had read Harry Potter and then wrote another work that includes the text “Up!” she screeched. (which appears verbatim in the first volume of the series.)
        LtWorf 11mo ago
        And what if I reproduced just a chapter of a few paragraphs?
    - em-bee 11mo ago
      if the generation is independent of the existing code well, that's the big question, isn't it? if the code is used for training AI and the AI reproduces the same code, is that really independent? i don't think so. Copyright protects against copying. It doesn't protect against someone creating the same content by means other than copying. if the code is the same, how do you prove it's not a copy? it's the same problem as with plagiarism, isn't it?

by em-bee 11mo ago

raincole 11mo ago

First of all, pure AI-generated code is uncopyrightable now. Uncopyrightable code can't be under GPL. Secondly, GPL can't "make your (proprietary) code disappear." Violating GPL is essentially just stealing code. One cannot distribute the version that includes stolen code. But they can remove the stolen part and replace it with their own code. Of course they still need to settle/pay for the previous infringement. GPL simply can't affect the copyright status of rest of the codebase, because it's a license, not a contract. It cannot restrict the user's right further than the copyright laws. Again, it's very common misunderstanding of GPL's "virality." It has been a several-decade long debate about whether GPL should be treated like a contract instead of a mere license, but there is no ruling giving it this special legal state (yet), at least in the US. [0]: https://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ https://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Legal_status https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Leg...

em-bee 11mo ago
First of all, pure AI-generated code is uncopyrightable now. Uncopyrightable code can't be under GPL. if AI generates something that is equal to existing code, then the license of that code applies. the AI generated product as a whole can't be copyrighted, but the portions that reproduce copyrighted code retain the original copyright. they can remove the stolen part and replace it with their own code sure, if they can do that, then they can distribute their code again. but until then they can't.
- dragonwriter 11mo ago
  > if AI generates something that is equal to existing code, then the license of that code applies. No, it doesn't, if the generation is independent of the existing code. If a person using AI uses existing code and makes a literal copy of it, then, yes, the copyright (and any license offer applicable in the circumstances) of the existing code may apply (it may also not, the same as with copies of portions of code made by other means), and it's less than clear if (especially for small portions of code) that legally such a copy has been made when a work is in the training set. Copyright protects against copying. It doesn't protect against someone creating the same content by means other than copying.
  - LtWorf 11mo ago
    If I read harry potter and randomly rewrite it you think I have a chance against Rowling?
    - dragonwriter 11mo ago
      No, almost cerainly it would be practically impossible if you reproduced the entire work, on top of evidence that you had perused it, because it would be very hard to convince a trier of fact that the duplication really was coincidence rather than copying, but it might be a very different story if you had read Harry Potter and then wrote another work that includes the text “Up!” she screeched. (which appears verbatim in the first volume of the series.)
      - LtWorf 11mo ago
        And what if I reproduced just a chapter of a few paragraphs?
  - em-bee 11mo ago
    if the generation is independent of the existing code well, that's the big question, isn't it? if the code is used for training AI and the AI reproduces the same code, is that really independent? i don't think so. Copyright protects against copying. It doesn't protect against someone creating the same content by means other than copying. if the code is the same, how do you prove it's not a copy? it's the same problem as with plagiarism, isn't it?