> the judge tells you to punch sand because your codebase is all AI generated and therefore not copyrighted. 1. There is no indication that is at all likely ex

> the judge tells you to punch sand because your codebase is all AI generated and therefore not copyrighted. 1. There is no indication that is at all likely except for purely vibe-coded projects. It seems highly unlikely and in some countries (e.g. the UK) the law clearly says otherwise. 2. There have been quite a few rulings in countries where it is unclear, and they all set some level of human input that will make AI generated code covered by copyright. Look at the cases that have been in HN stories about cases in the US, Germany and Japan, for example. 2. It would have to be all AI generated, and you would need to replace all the human written parts. Not a practical problem for a large, old project. If this is their real reasoning they are jumping at shadows. However, this might be like where, the copyright (which is the explanation given in the ToS) is not the real reason (which was explained in the subsequent blog post). It is interesting that proprietary software businesses, who have an even stronger interest in ensuring their software is covered by copyright in all countries seem to be quite happy to use LLM generated code. Microsoft and many others boast about how much of their code is now LLM generated.