Andrew Latham wrote: > > What I am concerned about. In the US it is a solid fact that only > works done by a human can be copyrighted. So does the use of an LLM > cause issue with the copyright/copyleft licences for software. Does > the influx of security issues and possible code suggestions made by an > LLM erode the strength of the copyright/copyleft protections of the > code?
That Depends. Case law doesn't exist yet. I think it's obvious that if you don't own the copyright, you can't offer a license for the copyright. So 100% LLM works are just in the public domain. You can freely re-use public domain work, combine it with your own work, and then you have copyright over the portion that you wrote yourself but can't complain over someone else re-using the same public-domain material. At what point does the integration of PD material to a copyrighted work remove the copyright on the rest? This is a problem because copyrights protect the specific expression of ideas. A biography or a novel or an essay: these are suitable subjects for copyright. Software isn't the specific expression of ideas, however: software is the specific expression of decision-making processes. Now, innovative, non-obvious processes can be protected by patents, not copyrights. But most software doesn't contain an innovative process, just a new combination of known processes. So. Copyleft depends on copyright; copyright is not quite correct for software; governments and corporations are too easily corrupted and must be regulated much better than they currently are. -dsr- -- https://randomstring.org/~dsr/eula.html is binding upon you. [Set the new password to "swordfish". Please repeat everything three times.]
