On Thu, Jul 9, 2026 at 2:52 PM Ludovic Courtès <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > Steve George <[email protected]> skribis: > > > I don't think there's any circumstance where we'd have to rip out LLM code > > from > > the archive. > > One case is that of copyright infringement where the LLM regurgitated > code that is proprietary or published under an incompatible license. > From what I’ve seen (references are in the GCD and in its previous > versions), this scenario is not science-fiction.
As discussed previously, the scenarios presented were targeted extraction on old models. But it should be easy to demonstrate incidental regurgitation for a model which would be used here, right? > More generally, the legal status of copyright output is still being > debated in every jurisdiction, and the fact that many would like to > treat it as public domain does not change that. What are the possibilities here? It seems to me that free software is just fine in any case, but perhaps you can show a scenario where copyright is a problem here. > Maybe three years from now copyright will be officially dismantled and > we’ll find the discussion we’re having today hilarious. In the > meantime, I believe having precautionary measures is understandable, and > we’d be in good company in doing so. I believe that Guix permits anonymous contributions. And we do not ask contributors whether they are willing or able to sue. So Guix already has a large number of de facto public domain contributions. Why is it that generative AI is now the problem?
