4 ms·

So this means you can not use AI for the majority of open source projects since GPL, MIT, BSD, etc are all copyright declarations and they'd be being made for c

So this means you can not use AI for the majority of open source projects since GPL, MIT, BSD, etc are all copyright declarations and they'd be being made for code which you can not copyright.

pornel 2mo ago
You can't enforce those licenses against AI-generated parts, because enforcement relies on the recipient having no other way to avoid copyright infringement. However, there's no issue with including non-copyrightable code in otherwise copyrighted projects. There's already plenty of non-copyrightable code like auto-generated boilerplate.
- Joel_Mckay 2mo ago
  >no issue with including non-copyrightable code in otherwise copyrighted projects That is not how copyright/trademark/contract laws work, and isomorphic plagiarism is not a long-term business model. People also loved Napster at first too. Good luck =3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhgYMH6n004 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhgYMH6n004
randyrand 2mo ago
No it would mean the license does not apply to the parts of code written by AI.
- Joel_Mckay 2mo ago
  No, GPL is a contaminating license contract, so "AI" slop means you are probably in GPL violation by including isomorphic plagiarized uncopyrightable code. =3
- Ekaros 2mo ago
  I find it hard to find correct terminology in this case. AI generated content is copy right wise in state of nothingness. It simply does not have copy right status like other material can have. As such maybe best I can formulate is that you can't enforce license violations against ai generated material as you do not have ownership. So no license is enforceable with code written by AI.
unethical_ban 2mo ago
It will be interesting if or when someone tries to enforce that perspective. Good luck proving an online contributor used AI on a merge request. Perhaps we'll have new iterations of FOSS licenses to adjust to legal declarations.
- Joel_Mckay 2mo ago
  It is actually pretty easy when the area is very specific like 1 guys Perl library, and Claude ports it to Python for a group unaware of what happened. All models know what Disney Mickey Mouse looks like too. =3
- archagon 2mo ago
  We’re soon going to return to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street Add a subtle bug or odd behavior to your code, see if someone else’s code repros it (presumably via LLM regurgitation), sue.
- dgellow 2mo ago
  We know for a fact that Bun port to Rust was done entirely by Claude! I’m wondering if that could be used against Anthropic in some ways (not that I want to, just curious what would be the angle)
voxelghost 2mo ago
wasnt there a case a while back, where GPL or LGPL code made its way into MIT licensed software via LLM? And they were forced to remove the copyleft code. I dont remember the details though.
- Joel_Mckay 2mo ago
  Usually what I have seen is someone writes a Perl library, Claude mostly ports it to Python with isomorphic plagiarism, and a bunch of Brogrammers proclaim "AI" magic is real. The issue is most GPL license fall under contract law, and scraped code can't legally have assigned "copy" rights on an "AI" vector search compaction output. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhgYMH6n004 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhgYMH6n004 Indeed, these rules obviously don't apply in places like India, Russia, Iran, and China. =3
Joel_Mckay 2mo ago
Indeed, but people will continue to think vector search compaction similarity absolves folks of Trademark and Copyright liability. As the dark specter of Disney Mickey Mouse looms over every LLM model involved in isomorphic and character plagiarism. Yes, even motion capture is considered a performance act in the guilds, so video reskinning an unlicensed performance act people make is also a liability. It would sure save a lot of money if you don't get caught, so people are gonna try it for sure. =3

So this means you can not use AI for the majority of open source projects since GPL, MIT, BSD, etc are all copyright declarations and they'd be being made for code which you can not copyright.

pornel 2mo ago

You can't enforce those licenses against AI-generated parts, because enforcement relies on the recipient having no other way to avoid copyright infringement. However, there's no issue with including non-copyrightable code in otherwise copyrighted projects. There's already plenty of non-copyrightable code like auto-generated boilerplate.

Joel_Mckay 2mo ago
>no issue with including non-copyrightable code in otherwise copyrighted projects That is not how copyright/trademark/contract laws work, and isomorphic plagiarism is not a long-term business model. People also loved Napster at first too. Good luck =3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhgYMH6n004 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhgYMH6n004

randyrand 2mo ago

No it would mean the license does not apply to the parts of code written by AI.

Joel_Mckay 2mo ago
No, GPL is a contaminating license contract, so "AI" slop means you are probably in GPL violation by including isomorphic plagiarized uncopyrightable code. =3
Ekaros 2mo ago
I find it hard to find correct terminology in this case. AI generated content is copy right wise in state of nothingness. It simply does not have copy right status like other material can have. As such maybe best I can formulate is that you can't enforce license violations against ai generated material as you do not have ownership. So no license is enforceable with code written by AI.

unethical_ban 2mo ago

It will be interesting if or when someone tries to enforce that perspective. Good luck proving an online contributor used AI on a merge request. Perhaps we'll have new iterations of FOSS licenses to adjust to legal declarations.

Joel_Mckay 2mo ago
It is actually pretty easy when the area is very specific like 1 guys Perl library, and Claude ports it to Python for a group unaware of what happened. All models know what Disney Mickey Mouse looks like too. =3
archagon 2mo ago
We’re soon going to return to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trap_street Add a subtle bug or odd behavior to your code, see if someone else’s code repros it (presumably via LLM regurgitation), sue.
dgellow 2mo ago
We know for a fact that Bun port to Rust was done entirely by Claude! I’m wondering if that could be used against Anthropic in some ways (not that I want to, just curious what would be the angle)

voxelghost 2mo ago

wasnt there a case a while back, where GPL or LGPL code made its way into MIT licensed software via LLM? And they were forced to remove the copyleft code. I dont remember the details though.

Joel_Mckay 2mo ago
Usually what I have seen is someone writes a Perl library, Claude mostly ports it to Python with isomorphic plagiarism, and a bunch of Brogrammers proclaim "AI" magic is real. The issue is most GPL license fall under contract law, and scraped code can't legally have assigned "copy" rights on an "AI" vector search compaction output. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhgYMH6n004 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhgYMH6n004 Indeed, these rules obviously don't apply in places like India, Russia, Iran, and China. =3

Joel_Mckay 2mo ago

Indeed, but people will continue to think vector search compaction similarity absolves folks of Trademark and Copyright liability. As the dark specter of Disney Mickey Mouse looms over every LLM model involved in isomorphic and character plagiarism. Yes, even motion capture is considered a performance act in the guilds, so video reskinning an unlicensed performance act people make is also a liability. It would sure save a lot of money if you don't get caught, so people are gonna try it for sure. =3