On 19/05/2025 05:02, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
On Sonntag, 18. Mai 2025 16:52:00 Mitteleuropäische Sommerzeit Christoph
Cullmann wrote:
On Sunday, May 18th, 2025 at 09:12, Albert Vaca Cintora
<albertv...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 18 May 2025, 08:59 Justin Zobel,<jus...@1707.io> wrote:
If the contributor cannot tell you the license(s) of the code that was
used to generate the code, then it's literally gambling that this code
wasn't taken from another project by Gemini and used without their
permission or used in a way that violates the license and opens up the
KDE e.V. to litigation.>
I'm no lawyer but I would expect that training AI will fall under fair use
of copyrighted code. If that's not the case already, it will probably be
soon. The benefits of AI to society are too large to autoimpose such a
roadblock.
if that would happen, then there is just no copyright protection anymore and
all is fair game, I highly doubt that, but yes, that is what companies that
want to get rich with deep learning want to have.
Have I been violating copyright or licenses for decades because I applied the
patterns I
saw in other Free Software code to my code?
No, because you didn't copy/paste the code, you studied it, learned how
it worked, and then wrote your own code.
And what about stuff I look(ed) up on stackoverflow?
https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing
I have applied some of the concepts I learned from writing proprietary code to
my Free Software code.
IANAL, but I believe concepts cannot be copyrighted.
for all we know, Co-Pilot was trained with the entire source code written by
Microsoft
Copilot is trained on every piece of code on GitHub, hence why a lot of
projects started migrating away from it.
Regards,
Justin
