3 ms·
From my layman understanding, the ownership of LLM generated code isn’t yet clarified. It could be that the person who prompted owns it, but it could also be no
by dgellow 2mo ago
From my layman understanding, the ownership of LLM generated code isn’t yet clarified. It could be that the person who prompted owns it, but it could also be nobody owns it, and we don’t yet have a legal ruling to rely upon, no?
- sebzim4500 2mo agoI don't see why an open source project would care one way or the other? If the prompter owns it then they are licensing it by submitting it to the project. If no one owns it then there is no problem.
- dgellow 2mo agoWe don’t know yet because that’s an unresolved matter. The question of ownership is currently undefined as far as I understand. It could be that after an actual legal decision the ownership doesn’t end up being one of those 2 cases, for whatever reasons the judge would decide
- alightsoul 2mo agoTo a company ownership is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether it contains trade secrets and that is often only proven if an employee worked at their company before
- dgellow 2mo agoWe are talking about Debian, a free software that cares a lot about the licensing of its packages. The licensing and authorship is an essential element of the project
- alightsoul 2mo agoYes, because they want to avoid trade secret lawsuits is what I understand? Computer generated output including code is in the public domain according to the us copyright office, so licensing and authorship are only relevant due to trade secrets is what I understand