On Sunday, 18 May 2025 09:11:35 Central European Summer Time Albert Vaca Cintora 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. > The problem is every single court in the entire world needs to come to the same conclusion for AI generated code to be valid in KDE.
The fact is the currently a lot of the code has been obtained illegally for the training, literally downloading books from wares sites, etc. This already puts it in a very difficult position legally, so I really doubt every single court in the world is going to find that just fine. And if that gets resolved, the other side, is still that the generated results are not copyrightable. Best reagards Allan
