Mr. Moakt Temporary Email, Thanks for your comments.
* Moakt Temporary Email <415461333...@drmail.in> [2025-04-25 09:00]: > Hi Jean Louis, > > > > > > > There is so far no LLM that can make full Emacs Lisp packages. IMHO, > > > > there is no Emacs Lisp package that can be said to be purely LLM > > > > created. > > > > > > On what did you based your opinion ? > > > > Did you maybe get a zero-shot Emacs package by any of the LLMs? > > > This does not make me have such a radical opinion. Copywriting a package > depends on many factors. I am following guidelines, and have no problems or issues with copyrights. "Copyrigthing" requires you only to say you are copyright holder. And that is it. Simple. And if you infringe upon it, the courts can judge about that. Let's keep the basic princple of many modern constitutions, nobody is guilty until proven so. If you created package, you are copyright holder. Finished there. Do you need to talk to anybody? No. Do you need to submit some information? No, unless there is some subpoena or court process. I don't care if my opinion is to you radical. Do you think I am here to provide you comforting opinions? My opinion is that I don't need any copyright laws. I really don't care, I only play the game within civilized society as not to harm other people. But do I really care? I don't. I will download any software I want, and do with it whatever I wish and want. I don't need to look at licenses. Even though I am very local on licensing issues and strive to bring people to make more free software. Personally, I don't download proprietary software, though it can happen by mistake when it is included in some purported free software packages. > And as I would liked to understand how you come up to such conclusion, in > such an important matter, I would have preferred a more serious answer. Go and get something more serious for you, here you can't find it. > I read the guidelines, and things are not automatically white-or-black, as > you may have certainly noticed, so when you assumed that “all Emacs Lisp > packages of the current time are copyrightable because human participated in > structuring, instructing, planning of the software”, without even having to > look at any, you should have been at least more precise about your > assumptions. I think, and as stated in the guidelines, these should be > handled case-by-case, and you may have been too expeditive in your > conclusions. Who is to handle it? You? Eli? Me? Court? Copyright office? Handle what you wish and how you wish. I care less, see above, I don't care about copyrights, I only play the copyleft game as that is good defense against copyright system. If you however, try to play game in such a way to impose burdens on authors, that means it goes against what we do in the GNU project, sharing software, enabling more free software. > The guidelines are only guidelines, but what happens in courts is another > thing. Guidelines are based on law and what happens in courts, not the > opposite. Exactly. That is why leave it for courts. You aren't judge, are you? This isn't court, is it? > Not to mention that there are many things that are questionable. For example > : > > Why LLMs themselves are not considered as “the human creative input and > intervention” to arrange things in a creative way, to get an output. They > are created by humans after all, so there is a human creative intervention in > producing the result. It may not be recognized as is today, but what happens > if this is recognized later, and who will become the (co)-author of all these > LLM generated works. (I am not saying to consider LLMs as humans) In which country? You must be specific. I don't care for copyright laws. I speak of what we do in GNU project according to my view. The discussion in Emacs Lisp context loses the point: - if ANY code is not copyrightable, that only means that other people can use the code anyway. That is all. Isn't that purpose of the GNU project? -------------------------------------- Where is the real problem here? Who is doing proprietary Emacs Lisp code anyway? Is it even legally possible? Each Emacs package is extension of Emacs. So where is the real problem at hand?! (is not a question) -- Jean Louis --- via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)
