Hi, Nguyễn Gia Phong <[email protected]> writes:
[...] > I think the nuances in _what_ output from LLM is used is important too > (in comparison to _how_ it is used, e.g. insights/ideas > vs patch generation), as copyright is based on the nontriviality > of an artistic expression. IANAL but I don't think fixing > a code fragment gives the fixer the complete copyright over it. > In other words, I think the threadshold should be drawn at the size > of the LLM output that is used within the patch, either verbatim > or with modifications. Agreed, it'll be interesting to see what the FSF and Freedom Conservancy lawyers have to say about the topic. > BTW I started this discussion primarily for the software we package, > i.e. if we are aware of upstream claim to hold copyright > of snippets extracted from other codebases, do we remove such package > from the official free software channel, or are we complicit > and use search engines, fora, LLM, etc. along with upstream > as a legal scapegoat? Because the legal risk is practically nonexistent > for packaging Linux with an ASL 2.0 metadata field, though it does hurt > our free software mission and morale from our user and contributor base. I personally think it'd be preposterous to actively remove packages because their authors have used LLMs, until we have better expert guidance to navigate this complex topic. -- Thanks, Maxim
