If submitter picks (a) they assert that they wrote the code themselves and have right to submit it under project's license. If (b) the code was taken from another place with clear license terms compatible with the project's license. If (c) contribution was written by someone else who asserted (a) or (b) and is submitted without changes.
Since LLM generated output is based on public code, but lacks attribution and the license of the original it is not possible to pick (b). (a) and (c) cannot be picked based on the submitter disclaimer in the PR body.
If there's a "the original" the LLM is copying then there's a problem.
If there isn't, then (b) works fine, the code is taken from the LLM with no preexisting license. And it would be very strange if a mix of (a) and (b) is a problem; almost any (b) code will need some (a) code to adapt it.
To many, it qualifies under either A or B, and therefore C as well. Under A, you can think of the LLM as augmenting your own intelligence. Under B, the license terms of LLM output are essentially that you can do whatever you want with it. The alternative is avoiding use of AI because of copyright or plagiarism concerns.
Whether AI output can fall under copyright at all is still up for debate - with some early rulings indicating that the fact that you prompted the AI does not automatically grant you authorship.
Even if it does, it hasn't been settled yet what the impact of your AI having been trained on copyrighted material is on its output. You can make a not-completely-unreasonable argument that AI inference output is a derivative work of AI training input.
Fact is, the matter isn't settled yet, which means any open-source project should assume the worst possible outcome - which in practice means a massive AI-generated PR like this should be treated like a nuke which could go off at any moment.
The submitted code must adhere to either of (a), (b), (c), and separately a (d) clause of: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/CONTRIBUTING.md#dev...
If submitter picks (a) they assert that they wrote the code themselves and have right to submit it under project's license. If (b) the code was taken from another place with clear license terms compatible with the project's license. If (c) contribution was written by someone else who asserted (a) or (b) and is submitted without changes.
Since LLM generated output is based on public code, but lacks attribution and the license of the original it is not possible to pick (b). (a) and (c) cannot be picked based on the submitter disclaimer in the PR body.
Not sure if you are intentionally misrepresenting (a), but here is the full text
(a) The contribution was created in whole or in part by me and I have the right to submit it under the open source license indicated in the file; or
That seems exclusive of LLMs, as the user didn't create the contribution, the LLM did.
If there's a "the original" the LLM is copying then there's a problem.
If there isn't, then (b) works fine, the code is taken from the LLM with no preexisting license. And it would be very strange if a mix of (a) and (b) is a problem; almost any (b) code will need some (a) code to adapt it.
To many, it qualifies under either A or B, and therefore C as well. Under A, you can think of the LLM as augmenting your own intelligence. Under B, the license terms of LLM output are essentially that you can do whatever you want with it. The alternative is avoiding use of AI because of copyright or plagiarism concerns.
It would be considered (a) since the author would own the copyright on the code.
Owning copyright of something and writing it are very different things
Citation needed.
Whether AI output can fall under copyright at all is still up for debate - with some early rulings indicating that the fact that you prompted the AI does not automatically grant you authorship.
Even if it does, it hasn't been settled yet what the impact of your AI having been trained on copyrighted material is on its output. You can make a not-completely-unreasonable argument that AI inference output is a derivative work of AI training input.
Fact is, the matter isn't settled yet, which means any open-source project should assume the worst possible outcome - which in practice means a massive AI-generated PR like this should be treated like a nuke which could go off at any moment.
4 replies →