The copyright office never saif gpl could not be enforced. Thats s conclusion made. Hell even in what you linked the requirement for this is that ai had to be a “substantial” part. The linux teamsaid they would take submissions that were assisted but not all out generated. But to argue a point, lets pretend that an entire pull request was ai generated. That is only a small part of thr linux kernel since the kernel is what is licensed. A sma amount of uncopywrited code cant invalidate the whole project, which the license is on.
But regardless, the copyright office never said anything about enforcement of gpl. T very clear said code with no meaningful human involvement, which isnt the case here. So nothing establishes what you said true. Its all leaping to comclusions that cant be leaped to.
The copyright office said material generated by AI is not copyrighted, even if that material is subsequently revised by the AI through additional prompts. That includes code. The GPL can only be used on copyrighted code. It is a copyleft license because it uses copyright law as a mechanism to enforce its terms. If you believe you can enforce a license on public domain material, that’s simply a gross misunderstanding of copyright law.
Yes, it will hopefully be a very small part of the kernel, but what happens thirty years from now if the kernel is all AI generated code? It may be a slippery slope, but it’s a valid slippery slope. The more the kernel is AI generated, the less of it the license can cover.
Thats not true. The new article being shoved down lemmy’s throat is not correct. They site court cases and come to bad conclusions
Ok, well here are quotes from the US Copyright Office that establish that what I said is true:
https://sciactive.com/human-contribution-policy/#More-Information
The copyright office never saif gpl could not be enforced. Thats s conclusion made. Hell even in what you linked the requirement for this is that ai had to be a “substantial” part. The linux teamsaid they would take submissions that were assisted but not all out generated. But to argue a point, lets pretend that an entire pull request was ai generated. That is only a small part of thr linux kernel since the kernel is what is licensed. A sma amount of uncopywrited code cant invalidate the whole project, which the license is on.
But regardless, the copyright office never said anything about enforcement of gpl. T very clear said code with no meaningful human involvement, which isnt the case here. So nothing establishes what you said true. Its all leaping to comclusions that cant be leaped to.
The copyright office said material generated by AI is not copyrighted, even if that material is subsequently revised by the AI through additional prompts. That includes code. The GPL can only be used on copyrighted code. It is a copyleft license because it uses copyright law as a mechanism to enforce its terms. If you believe you can enforce a license on public domain material, that’s simply a gross misunderstanding of copyright law.
Yes, it will hopefully be a very small part of the kernel, but what happens thirty years from now if the kernel is all AI generated code? It may be a slippery slope, but it’s a valid slippery slope. The more the kernel is AI generated, the less of it the license can cover.