Ok, so, someone used an LLM do create changes. This new code is no longer under the project license it is, as you say, public domain.
Move forward 400 commits. At what point is most of the code public domain?
While correct you still missed the point completely.
So,not make this as clear as possible: You can not license LLM generated code. Not under GPL, z lib or other copyleft licenses. It may work with public domain licenses.
For MIT licensed projects there is not a big issue.
For the kernel, have a look at the rules. AI models may assist only.
Ok, so, someone used an LLM do create changes. This new code is no longer under the project license it is, as you say, public domain.
Except it is, depending on code similarity. The court uses the same rules as with book plagiarism. If LLM uses exactly same code structure and only renames some variables or adds pieces of code that do nothing useful, high chances the court will declare it a derived work and enforce the license.
You hit the framing issue right on the head. People keep using code and project interchangeably. Code has never been able to be copyrighted. You cant copyright a for loop. I cant create a car class that has properties like make, model, year and copywrite it. Thats never been a thing. Thats why projects are copyrighted. An entire piece of work.
Now your Ship of Theseus has a debateable point. If every single line of code is ai written, does it become an ai project. I woild argue not because of himan involvement to get it there. I also dont see it happening. Not every line of code is replaced. But if it was, that would be a court challenge.
Code has never been able to be copyrighted. You cant copyright a for loop. I cant create a car class that has properties like make, model, year and copywrite it. Thats never been a thing. Thats why projects are copyrighted. An entire piece of work.
Every single complete sentence in this quote is factually wrong, under both USA copyright law and international copyright law.
Copyright accrues the moment that some work is rendered into a fixed format, such as a sheet of paper but also includes a text file. Writing a “for” loop as a homework assignment does create copyright. Ten students writing their homework all create their own copyright, even if the result is coincidentally identical. This isn’t even a point of serious doubt in the law: copyright is very much an exercise of provenance, not of bitwise comparisons.
From when a work is created, ever transformation, edit, or additional must all occur within the parameters of some sort of license from the copyright owner, or else an infringement has occurred.
Two people may stand at the same position at the foot of Mt Whitney in California and set up their own camera, one after another, on the same tripod to take the same frame of the scenery. And under copyright law, each owns the copyright to their own photo. One may decide to sell their photo and copyright to an East Coast newspaper, while the other has theirs committed to canvas. The newspaper may not assert a copyright claim against the canvas owner, and the canvas owner cannot assert a claim against the newspaper.
What you are referencing is a project using other projects. You very much can take a function use it. Its when what you take starts to resemble the whole that it vecomes a problem. But if you see a project and say “hey i like how they store files in this collection.”, you can use that. Now if you are making a kernel and rip out code tlthat resembles a kernel then no.
Ok, so, someone used an LLM do create changes. This new code is no longer under the project license it is, as you say, public domain.
Move forward 400 commits. At what point is most of the code public domain?
While correct you still missed the point completely.
So,not make this as clear as possible: You can not license LLM generated code. Not under GPL, z lib or other copyleft licenses. It may work with public domain licenses.
For MIT licensed projects there is not a big issue.
For the kernel, have a look at the rules. AI models may assist only.
Except it is, depending on code similarity. The court uses the same rules as with book plagiarism. If LLM uses exactly same code structure and only renames some variables or adds pieces of code that do nothing useful, high chances the court will declare it a derived work and enforce the license.
You hit the framing issue right on the head. People keep using code and project interchangeably. Code has never been able to be copyrighted. You cant copyright a for loop. I cant create a car class that has properties like make, model, year and copywrite it. Thats never been a thing. Thats why projects are copyrighted. An entire piece of work.
Now your Ship of Theseus has a debateable point. If every single line of code is ai written, does it become an ai project. I woild argue not because of himan involvement to get it there. I also dont see it happening. Not every line of code is replaced. But if it was, that would be a court challenge.
Every single complete sentence in this quote is factually wrong, under both USA copyright law and international copyright law.
Copyright accrues the moment that some work is rendered into a fixed format, such as a sheet of paper but also includes a text file. Writing a “for” loop as a homework assignment does create copyright. Ten students writing their homework all create their own copyright, even if the result is coincidentally identical. This isn’t even a point of serious doubt in the law: copyright is very much an exercise of provenance, not of bitwise comparisons.
From when a work is created, ever transformation, edit, or additional must all occur within the parameters of some sort of license from the copyright owner, or else an infringement has occurred.
Two people may stand at the same position at the foot of Mt Whitney in California and set up their own camera, one after another, on the same tripod to take the same frame of the scenery. And under copyright law, each owns the copyright to their own photo. One may decide to sell their photo and copyright to an East Coast newspaper, while the other has theirs committed to canvas. The newspaper may not assert a copyright claim against the canvas owner, and the canvas owner cannot assert a claim against the newspaper.
So, by your logic I take the kernel source, or parts of it and use them verbatim in my property project?
You can see yourself that you are talking bullshit?
Or course code is and was licensable. Because code is more then hast if, else, for, while.
Ever seen that some code in some projects is dual licensed?
Why would anyone need this if only while projects are licensable?
https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/collection/eupl/licence-compatibility-permissivity-reciprocity-and-interoperability
What you are referencing is a project using other projects. You very much can take a function use it. Its when what you take starts to resemble the whole that it vecomes a problem. But if you see a project and say “hey i like how they store files in this collection.”, you can use that. Now if you are making a kernel and rip out code tlthat resembles a kernel then no.
Citation needed