Hi, On Thu, Jul 4, 2024 at 4:04 PM Daniele Nicolodi <dani...@grinta.net> wrote: > > On 04/07/24 12:49, Matthew Brett wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Sorry to top-post! But - I wanted to bring the discussion back to > > licensing. I have great sympathy for the ecological and code-quality > > concerns, but licensing is a separate question, and, it seems to me, > > an urgent question. > > The licensing issue is complex and it is very likely that it will not > get a definitive answer until a lawsuit centered around this issue is > litigated in court. There are several lawsuits involving similar issues > ongoing, but any resolution is likely to take several years.
I feel sure we would want to avoid GPL code if the copyright holders felt that we were abusing their license - regardless of whether the court felt the copyright was realistically enforceable. > Providing other, much more pragmatic and easier to gauge, reasons to > reject AI generated contributions, I was trying to sidestep the > licensing issue completely. > > If there are other reasons why auto-generated contributions should be > rejected, there is no need to solve the much harder problem of > licensing: we don't want them regardless of the licensing issue. Let me take a different tack, but related. We don't, as yet, have a good feeling for the societal harm that AI will do, or its benefits. But I imagine we can agree that AI does lead to copyright ambiguity, and, at the moment, it offers no compelling benefit over well-crafted human-written code. Then - let's be defensive while we consider the copyright problem, and wait until AI can show some benefit that is a significant counterweight to the copyright argument. Cheers, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list -- numpy-discussion@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to numpy-discussion-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/numpy-discussion.python.org/ Member address: arch...@mail-archive.com
