So Linux is no longer open source?
Because we can’t fork something that’s not open source. And just 1 AI contribution means it’s a copyright violation, so its no longer copyleft.
That is quite the statement. Is there any legal precedence for that? Yes, I know the technical why, but a blanket “one AI contribution and its over” is a little over the top, to put it mildly, and sounds like an extreme over generalization of a complicated problem
Nope, it hasn’t been litigated yet.
But it stands to reason that AI is a derivative of copyrighted material (unless the training set was released and confirmed to only contain otherwise). And there is loads of case precedent for fucking defendants hard on that violation
Hi, I’m a software engineer.
I’ve also been trained on copyrighted material, because every codebase I’ve worked on for money has been proprietary.
Does that mean I can’t touch open source code? I could accidentally use a snippet I’ve written before in some other setting.
The real licensing issue of AI use shouldn’t even apply to Linux because it’s already GPL. GPL infects anything it touches so if you use GPL-trained AI on an MIT project and it spits out something resembling the GPL code it was trained on, that would make that MIT project a GPL project. It would also make your proprietary projects GPL projects.
You’re unlikely to spit out code from your corpus verbatim, so the answer to your first question is a resounding no. If you did copy from your previous jobs, you’d be liable.
Sad this article doesn’t talk about why open source projects reject AI, specifically because of the legal implications of all the copyright violations baked into their training data
That is not how copyright works. But if you expand IP law that way, open source projects will be the first victim.
