Replying only to a specific point: Pierre-Elliot Bécue wrote: > the way > some FOSS licenses work don't allow for bits of the software to be > unlicensed.
> Let's take GPL's example. GPL is what some external people call as > "contaminating". Essentially, if one wants to add AI-generated > contribution to a GPL-licensed software, then these additions must also > be licensed under GPL, which is not possible in the U.S! I don't get this. As I understand, it has always been considered legitimate to combine GPL software with more liberally licensed software (e.g., BSD) and release the combination under the GPL. Thus, the more liberally licensed part becomes effectively "dual-licensed" -- you can use it under the GPL, with or without the rest of the combination, or you can strip it from the combination and use it under the original license. I don't see this as a different case. In practice, non-copyrighted software is "licensed under the ultimate liberal license": since there's no copyright owner who can restrict what you can do with it, you can do *anything*. I'm pretty sure there are already instances of public-domain code (e.g., code written by employees of the US government) incorporated into GPL projects. That has never been a problem. (By the way I wouldn't call this "unlicensed" since that means quite the opposite: software *with* a valid copyright and without a license cannot be used at all.) Gerardo
