Aigars Mahinovs <[email protected]> writes: > On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 at 10:11, Gard Spreemann <[email protected]> wrote: > > Is this really what we're discussing though? I can see why one would > want an AI policy not to bar on copyright grounds something that is not > copyrightable in the first place. That's reasonable. But I don't think > it's what people really mean when they're concerned about > copyright. > > The wording of the proposals bans *all* contributions where AI is used in > their creation, > without any regard to the copyrightability of the contribution itself. > > So that is why the argument is proposed, that if teh copyright *is* the key > concern, then the > policy should not apply to contrubitions small enough not to be considered as > copyrightable > and do so explicitly.
I should have made it clear that I see and appreciate that concern. If there was interest in my ballot proposal, I would have worked to change the wording accordingly.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
