Post #2796020

2026-03-08 00:55 UTC

@soph@grrl.me I guess what Im trying to get at is that if *any* amount of AI code is considered uncopyrightable, that would become a poison pill for any project that has had any amount of AI code contributed to it. It's not like every line of code authored by an LLM has a label that says: "I was written by an LLM." If I'm not mistaken there are OSS projects like the Linux kernel which will accept PRs that were partially authored by LLMs. I don't see how that could be untangled.

Replies (3)

@zkat@toot.cat 2026-03-08 01:05

@yosh@toot.yosh.is @soph@grrl.me I think the issue at hand is that they may have very well screwed the pooch by doing that

Open ##2796021
@poliorcetics@social.treehouse.systems 2026-03-08 01:07

@yosh@toot.yosh.is @soph@grrl.me the funniest timeline would be someone leaving a FAANG-type company with all the code made after 2025 and be relaxed in court with the argument that since it was mostly LLM written, it’s not copyrighted

Open ##2796022
@ids1024@mathstodon.xyz 2026-03-08 01:11

@yosh@toot.yosh.is @soph@grrl.me That part doesn't really seem like a problem, honestly. As I understand. It's already the case that Linux kernel contributors (like most OSS projects) retain copyright on their contributions. The "linux kernel" can't sue anyone for copyright infringement; only the specific copyright holders, for the code they own. A particular contributor's contributions being public domain presumably is similar as far as actual copyright enforcement to that person not being interested in joining as a plaintiff in a copyright lawsuit. (Of course, if the LLM's output were found to be *infringing* that could be a bigger problem.)

Open ##2796023