The copyright office never saif gpl could not be enforced. Thats s conclusion made. Hell even in what you linked the requirement for this is that ai had to be a “substantial” part. The linux teamsaid they would take submissions that were assisted but not all out generated. But to argue a point, lets pretend that an entire pull request was ai generated. That is only a small part of thr linux kernel since the kernel is what is licensed. A sma amount of uncopywrited code cant invalidate the whole project, which the license is on.
But regardless, the copyright office never said anything about enforcement of gpl. T very clear said code with no meaningful human involvement, which isnt the case here. So nothing establishes what you said true. Its all leaping to comclusions that cant be leaped to.
The copyright office said material generated by AI is not copyrighted, even if that material is subsequently revised by the AI through additional prompts. That includes code. The GPL can only be used on copyrighted code. It is a copyleft license because it uses copyright law as a mechanism to enforce its terms. If you believe you can enforce a license on public domain material, that’s simply a gross misunderstanding of copyright law.
Yes, it will hopefully be a very small part of the kernel, but what happens thirty years from now if the kernel is all AI generated code? It may be a slippery slope, but it’s a valid slippery slope. The more the kernel is AI generated, the less of it the license can cover.
Sure, you can license it whatever you want, but I can too, because it’s public domain. And neither of us can enforce those license terms on the other, because again, it’s public domain.
The status of generated code is ‘uncopyrightable’, which can be licensed.
Copyright law determines the copyright status and contract law enforces the terms of contracts. They are two separate issues.
If someone licenses you to use their AI generated code and you violate the license agreement, it doesn’t matter that they don’t have a claim under copyright law. They have a claim under contract law due to you violating the terms of the license (which is a contract).
That is the FSF’s position, but the case law has examples of cases where it was allowed to be treated by a contract.
SFC v. Vizio, the Software Freedom Conservancy sued Vizio as a third-party beneficiary of the GPL as a contract, and the court allowed the case to proceed on that theory.
Because in that case the copyright holder is the arbitrator of the terms under which their copyrighted material can be used and reproduced. If they did not own the copyright then any “license” would not be worth the paper it was written on and no judge would allow it to be treated as an implicit contract.
Distributing under the GPL is a software license agreement which is absolutely a contract:
A software license agreement is a legal contract that grants you permission to use software without transferring ownership. The software creator retains intellectual property rights while giving you specific usage rights under defined terms and conditions.
This is a bad move. The GPL license cannot be enforced on AI generated code.
Thats not true. The new article being shoved down lemmy’s throat is not correct. They site court cases and come to bad conclusions
Ok, well here are quotes from the US Copyright Office that establish that what I said is true:
https://sciactive.com/human-contribution-policy/#More-Information
The copyright office never saif gpl could not be enforced. Thats s conclusion made. Hell even in what you linked the requirement for this is that ai had to be a “substantial” part. The linux teamsaid they would take submissions that were assisted but not all out generated. But to argue a point, lets pretend that an entire pull request was ai generated. That is only a small part of thr linux kernel since the kernel is what is licensed. A sma amount of uncopywrited code cant invalidate the whole project, which the license is on.
But regardless, the copyright office never said anything about enforcement of gpl. T very clear said code with no meaningful human involvement, which isnt the case here. So nothing establishes what you said true. Its all leaping to comclusions that cant be leaped to.
The copyright office said material generated by AI is not copyrighted, even if that material is subsequently revised by the AI through additional prompts. That includes code. The GPL can only be used on copyrighted code. It is a copyleft license because it uses copyright law as a mechanism to enforce its terms. If you believe you can enforce a license on public domain material, that’s simply a gross misunderstanding of copyright law.
Yes, it will hopefully be a very small part of the kernel, but what happens thirty years from now if the kernel is all AI generated code? It may be a slippery slope, but it’s a valid slippery slope. The more the kernel is AI generated, the less of it the license can cover.
AI generated code cannot be copyrighted, can it? Then it can be relicensed as GPL.
Sure, you can license it whatever you want, but I can too, because it’s public domain. And neither of us can enforce those license terms on the other, because again, it’s public domain.
In order to “license” a work, you need to own the copyright.
The status of generated code is ‘uncopyrightable’, which can be licensed.
Copyright law determines the copyright status and contract law enforces the terms of contracts. They are two separate issues.
If someone licenses you to use their AI generated code and you violate the license agreement, it doesn’t matter that they don’t have a claim under copyright law. They have a claim under contract law due to you violating the terms of the license (which is a contract).
The GPL is not a contract.
That is the FSF’s position, but the case law has examples of cases where it was allowed to be treated by a contract.
SFC v. Vizio, the Software Freedom Conservancy sued Vizio as a third-party beneficiary of the GPL as a contract, and the court allowed the case to proceed on that theory.
Because in that case the copyright holder is the arbitrator of the terms under which their copyrighted material can be used and reproduced. If they did not own the copyright then any “license” would not be worth the paper it was written on and no judge would allow it to be treated as an implicit contract.
You’re right, I misread the context (I was trying to carry on multiple simultaneous conversations).
My apologies.
Distributing under the GPL is a software license agreement which is absolutely a contract:
- https://ironcladapp.com/journal/contracts/software-license-agreement