Hi, >
> > On Sonntag, 18. Mai 2025 16:52:00 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit Christoph > Cullmann wrote: > > > On Sunday, May 18th, 2025 at 09:12, Albert Vaca Cintora > > albertv...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Sun, 18 May 2025, 08:59 Justin Zobel, jus...@1707.io wrote: > > > > > > > If the contributor cannot tell you the license(s) of the code that was > > > > used to generate the code, then it's literally gambling that this code > > > > wasn't taken from another project by Gemini and used without their > > > > permission or used in a way that violates the license and opens up the > > > > KDE e.V. to litigation.> > > > > > > I'm no lawyer but I would expect that training AI will fall under fair use > > > of copyrighted code. If that's not the case already, it will probably be > > > soon. The benefits of AI to society are too large to autoimpose such a > > > roadblock. > > > > if that would happen, then there is just no copyright protection anymore and > > all is fair game, I highly doubt that, but yes, that is what companies that > > want to get rich with deep learning want to have. > > > But isn't that how knowlegde transfer works since ages especially in science? > > I learned programming mostly be reading other people's code. Have I been > violating copyright or licenses for decades because I applied the patterns I > saw in other Free Software code to my code? And what about stuff I look(ed) up > on stackoverflow? I don't think I have ever seen code on stackoverflow that > had > a proper license. At least in Germany this means that this code is under a > very strict license and cannot be used without the authors explicit consent. > (Something like Fair Use doesn't exist in Germany.) On the other hand, I don't > think that I have ever copied code literally from stackoverflow. I have also > never copied code literally that I developed at my former workplace, but of > course I have applied some of the concepts I learned from writing proprietary > code to my Free Software code. > > Yes, there is the theoretical threat that an AI learned code that's under a > less liberal license like the GPL or even under one of the "new" not-OSI- > approved licenses used by certain companies to prevent Amazon from selling > services based on their code (or even proprietary code; for all we know, Co- > Pilot was trained with the entire source code written by Microsoft), but > that's only a problem if the AI cites this code literally so that we could be > sued for plagiarizing. How realistic is this threat? I think the big issue is: you don't know. That is all just deep learning, the model doesn't give you a clue if it just derived something based on combinations of some 'learned' variants or just outputs more or less the exact article/snippet/... it was trained on with some minor renamings. On the other side I would assume, if you do create a code snippet, it will not be by accident a full copy of something you have seen somewhen, or you will at least tell that :) But back to my https://invent.kde.org/frameworks/syntax-highlighting/-/merge_requests/698 as example: I can live with ignoring the model and just say: the user put in the referenced: rust.xml - MIT bash.xml - LGPL powershell.xml - MIT https://docs.kde.org/stable5/en/kate/katepart/highlight.html A code a previously worked as a basis to test against: https://github.com/imsys/fzf/blob/master/shell/completion-external.nu and then accept it as LGPL. Is that ok? For me it would. Greetings Christoph > > Regards, > Ingo
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
