Thomas Koenig via Gcc <[email protected]> writes: > Am 01.08.26 um 21:00 schrieb Sam James: >>> What happens if a patch contains a non-trival amount of code that >>> cannot be copyrighted because it was assisted by AI? >> The open questions around this are why the GNU project issued >> provisional guidance to reject significant contributions developed with >> an LLM. >> If it is copyrightable, then who owns the copyright? If it's based >> on >> the training data, then the contributor may not have the rights to >> share such a patch, and it cannot be legally redistributed under the GPL >> (or any licence). > [...] > > To put it bluntly: The current policy is based on a risk assessment > that nobody shares
Here's a few that come to mind: * https://openjdk.org/legal/ai * https://www.netbsd.org/developers/commit-guidelines.html * the GNU project overall * https://www.qemu.org/docs/master/devel/code-provenance.html#use-of-ai-generated-content sam
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
