> IMO there's legal questions we cannot really answer and there's > common sense. Taking > > - length_factor = size_int (vect_factor); > + length_factor = size_int (vect_factor - 1); > > how can you not literally do the very same upon suggestion from > LLM or a friend?
Sure, but that change is not copyrightable whether written by a human or LLM because it's functional, not creative. So we needn't be concerned about scenarios like this. > My common legal-sense also says that changes like above are obviously > a derivative of GCC and not a derivative of sth else and thus > "legally insignificant". Even if the change is large enough to be legally significant, I think it's clear that it's a derived work from GCC. > But yes, I'm not really happy with the wording of our AI policy. Nor am I because of this issue among others. The policy allows for the possibility that the use of an LLM somehow "cancels" that derivation. My own view, and the view of many others, is that, although this particular issue hasn't been litigated, it's highly unlikely that it will be decided in that way. (If an LLM translates a copyrighted book, does that mean the result can be used freely? I doubt it).
