4 ms·
The premise of the quote does not contain the assumption that there is no copyright to the code. In fact the various contributors do not advance an opinion abou
by plorg 6mo ago
The premise of the quote does not contain the assumption that there is no copyright to the code. In fact the various contributors do not advance an opinion about whether code written by an AI can be granted copyright. Rather they are saying that it is obviously derivative of code that is under copyright, that is only distributed under terms which, however many dry cleaners process it, will still conflict with the license under which they publish their software.
- bigbadfeline 6mo ago> Rather they are saying that it is obviously derivative of code that is under copyright Derivatives are not subject to copyright, unless they are close to, and contain substantial verbatim copies from, the original. It's a virtual certainty that a vibe-coded Ext4 FS is none of the above. Redefining copyright as some weird patenting of similar ideas is absurd.
- em-bee 6mo agosee my response here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47557250 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47557250
- FeepingCreature 6mo agoDifferent people advance different arguments in the thread. The BSD argument is "we cannot distribute it because it is not copyrightable, thus we cannot put it under a BSD license." This is simply incoherent.