That‘s a common misunderstanding how licenses work on HN. Often even worse: "MIT allows relicensing" (no it doesn‘t, and sub-licensing is something different).
Yes, you need to supply all of those if you distribute the Linux kernel in binary form. No, most companies don‘t do that in practice. Yes, they are in breach of all those licenses. Yes, next kernel release there will be changes.
I‘ve long been procrastinating on writing a blog post about exactly that.
As a new Mac user I could not decide between Macports and Homebrew, and I went with pkgsrc/pkgin. Cannot complain, have had zero reason to revisit that decision ever since.
Why do you think it's not copyrightable? It absolutely is under current US law. OP copied the interfaces, which is perfectly legal, and then defined their own implementations. Even if they are working with an LLM, that process of interactive prompting establishes authorship.
This hasn't yet been decided, as I pointed out above. The courts have indicated that push button LLM output is not copyrightable, but haven't said anything about larger orchestrations of multiple agents operating over hours or days to produce something with direction from a human.
Given that photographs are copyrightable, I wouldn't hold my breath on projects like this being deemed ineligible for copyright.
> In the copyright law in the United States, such copyright may exist when the materials in the compilation (or "collective work") are selected, coordinated, or arranged creatively such that a new work is produced. Copyright does not exist when content is compiled without creativity, such as in the production of a telephone directory. In the case of compilation copyright, the compiler does not receive copyright in the underlying material, but only in the selection, coordination, or arrangement of that material.
All my experience seeing orgs ship real production code with the assistance of AI over months/many-thousands-of-commits shows that the skill not only lies in what context you choose to provide in the first place (product and technical specifications, design guidelines, prompting process with the model(s)), but also in how to effectively review and test all of it, which is still done with human direction throughout. This is why people with no experience in coding can't do with AI what an industry veteran with 20 years shipping to production can.
In any case, I think existing reading of copyright law will be sufficient to say that large AI-driven software projects are a process of orchestration and also of curation in selecting what actually gets committed (or, if commit-by-default is enabled, then what to revert). This may not always be true in the future, though, as capabilities increase...one part of me thinks you could just do random stuff like "Make me an excel except every cell is a powerpoint presentation" and a good enough AI would reason through and produce something without further input. But I think in most cases, folks have a real set of requirements in mind, and get all of them into the AI through a process of iteration in various ways. I think that's real work that requires skill and, in many cases, creativity, at least in the sense that someone else walking up to the same tool and prompting on their own would produce a very different output than you'd see if you asked the same person to retry the same project.
I don't think we disagree that much. But the repo in question had basically no human input, at least no substantial one. It will be interesting where the courts will decide the boundary lies though.
Copyright of aggregated and curated LLM output has not been decided upon, but other curation precedents suggest it is going to be copyrightable, similar to how curated collections of facts are copyrightable, even though facts themselves are not.
that's not what I was asking, I was asking Mr. Fuchs his pronunciation of the color named after the fuchsia flower named after the biologist Dr. Fuchs.
Same here, but the GitHub thread actually calls that out as a known bug. Swipe from the left. Intention is that clicking sonewhere on the map closes the dialog.
That‘s a common misunderstanding how licenses work on HN. Often even worse: "MIT allows relicensing" (no it doesn‘t, and sub-licensing is something different).
Behold the full set of licenses and copyright notices that apply to the Linux kernel, scanned with FOSSology[1] and ScanCode[2], and curated by licensing professionals: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Open-Source-Compliance/pac...
Yes, you need to supply all of those if you distribute the Linux kernel in binary form. No, most companies don‘t do that in practice. Yes, they are in breach of all those licenses. Yes, next kernel release there will be changes.
I‘ve long been procrastinating on writing a blog post about exactly that.
[1] https://www.fossology.org/
[2] https://github.com/aboutcode-org/scancode-toolkit
reply