3 ms·
What about the code that wasn't even GPL, but "all rights reserved", i.e., without any license? That's even stronger than GPL and based on your reasoning, this
by nkmnz 8mo ago
What about the code that wasn't even GPL, but "all rights reserved", i.e., without any license? That's even stronger than GPL and based on your reasoning, this would mean that any code created by an LLM is not licensed to be used for anything.
- moralestapia 8mo agoYes.
- scuff3d 8mo agoOkay. That's fine with me. I was trying to be generous and assume the GPL would be the strongest.
- duskdozer 8mo agoThat would make sense, yes.
- PaulDavisThe1st 8mo agoCode created by an LLM cannot, in the USA, be copyrighted. No copyright, no license.
- nkmnz 8mo agoYou get it wrong. Copyright is excluding you from using something, a license is allowing you to use something. So „no license“ does NOT mean „free to use“, but „not allowed to use“.
- PaulDavisThe1st 8mo agoIf you do not hold copyright, you cannot prevent someone from copying a thing. If you cannot prevent someone from copying the thing, then "licensing" it is somewhere between pretty weird and pretty stupid, no?
- nkmnz 8mo agoNo, because OP implied that the AI generated content inherits the LICENSE: in their view, if the input has been GPL, The output must be GPL. So if the input hasn’t been licensed at all, the output cannot be licensed. The inheritance of „no license“ is not „no copyright“, but „no license“. The question of copyright applies hasn’t been definitely answered yet, but just because it is likely that the person PROMPTING the AI doesn’t gain copyright, doesn’t mean that an output that is 1:1 derived from copyrighted material loses its copyrighted status. That would be truly ridiculous.
- PaulDavisThe1st 8mo agoAs you note, this is a legal question that has not yet been answered. I think that speculating on the outcome in the current legal climate is fruitless.