← Back to context

Comment by raincole

1 day ago

First of all, pure AI-generated code is uncopyrightable now. Uncopyrightable code can't be under GPL.

Secondly, GPL can't "make your (proprietary) code disappear." Violating GPL is essentially just stealing code. One cannot distribute the version that includes stolen code. But they can remove the stolen part and replace it with their own code. Of course they still need to settle/pay for the previous infringement.

GPL simply can't affect the copyright status of rest of the codebase, because it's a license, not a contract. It cannot restrict the user's right further than the copyright laws.

Again, it's very common misunderstanding of GPL's "virality." It has been a several-decade long debate about whether GPL should be treated like a contract instead of a mere license, but there is no ruling giving it this special legal state (yet), at least in the US.

[0]: https://lwn.net/Articles/61292/ [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Leg...

7 comments

raincole

Reply
em-bee  1 day ago

First of all, pure AI-generated code is uncopyrightable now. Uncopyrightable code can't be under GPL.

if AI generates something that is equal to existing code, then the license of that code applies. the AI generated product as a whole can't be copyrighted, but the portions that reproduce copyrighted code retain the original copyright.

they can remove the stolen part and replace it with their own code

sure, if they can do that, then they can distribute their code again. but until then they can't.

  • dragonwriter  1 day ago

    > if AI generates something that is equal to existing code, then the license of that code applies.

    No, it doesn't, if the generation is independent of the existing code. If a person using AI uses existing code and makes a literal copy of it, then, yes, the copyright (and any license offer applicable in the circumstances) of the existing code may apply (it may also not, the same as with copies of portions of code made by other means), and it's less than clear if (especially for small portions of code) that legally such a copy has been made when a work is in the training set.

    Copyright protects against copying. It doesn't protect against someone creating the same content by means other than copying.

    • em-bee  1 day ago

      if the generation is independent of the existing code

      well, that's the big question, isn't it? if the code is used for training AI and the AI reproduces the same code, is that really independent?

      i don't think so.

      Copyright protects against copying. It doesn't protect against someone creating the same content by means other than copying.

      if the code is the same, how do you prove it's not a copy?

      it's the same problem as with plagiarism, isn't it?

      1 reply →