[email protected] (Richard Kenner) writes: >> It seems like it would be difficult to relax the policy much without >> also relaxing the copyright/origin rules for contributions that don't >> use LLMs. > > Not really. The policy could take the view that the person > instructing the LLM is the copyright holder because they had enough > human interaction with the LLM to be able to claim copyright on that basis. > That would provide a person to do (a) or (b).
Are you sure? I remember a case where, despite regular IP training, a colleague copied a piece of GPL code wholesale into commercial software (as part of a larger change). Fortunately that case was within the company's ability to rectify. For copyrightable changes, how could someone using an LLM be sure that that the LLM hadn't done the same? To put it another way: suppose I'd talked with that colleague over Slack, describing what was needed. Suppose we'd gone back and forth on it a bit and then the colleague had sent the final patch. How would I be able to ceritfy (a) or (b), either for myself or the colleague? In this hypothetical situation, I would have instigated and guided the conversation, but the work was done by the colleague and (in this case, and unknown to me) an uncredited third party whose work was under a different licence. Couldn't the same thing happen with an LLM? Obviously GCC is a GPL project and so that particular example wouldn't necessarily be a problem. But IIRC there are GPL-v2-only forks of GCC. How could someone be sure that all the output of an LLM can be licensed as GPL v3 or above? I suppose the policy also has to be future proof. The trend is clearly to try to make LLMs do more with less coaxing, so the level of human input is likely to decrease over time. Still playing devil's advocate. :) Richard
