Post #2900950

2026-04-18 14:21 UTC

@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @ossguy@fedi.copyleft.org @richardfontana@mastodon.social So let me summarize: - Without knowing the legal status of accepting LLM contributions, we're potentially polluting our codebases with stuff that we are going to have a HELL of a time cleaning up later - The idea of a copyleft-only LLM is a joke and we should not rely on it - We really only have two realistic scenarios: either FOSS projects cannot accept LLM based contributions legally from an international perspective, or everything is effectively in the public domain as outputted from these machines, but at least in the latter scenario we get to weaken copyright for everyone. That's leaving out a lot of other considerations about LLMs and the ethics of using them, which I think most of the other replies were focused on, I largely focused on the copyright implications aspects in this subthread. Because yes, I agree, it can be important to focus a conversation. But we can't ignore this right now. We're putting FOSS codebases at risk.

Replies (10)

@LordCaramac@discordian.social 2026-04-18 14:28

@cwebber@social.coop @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @ossguy@fedi.copyleft.org @richardfontana@mastodon.social I think we should just destroy copyright entirely and expand the public domain to contain everything that has ever been published. Intellectual property was a very bad idea in the first place IMHO.

Open ##2900951
@jtnystrom@genomic.social 2026-04-18 14:31

@cwebber@social.coop @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @ossguy@fedi.copyleft.org @richardfontana@mastodon.social Super interesting thread. Very helpful to spell out the problems like this.

Open ##2900966
@jens@social.finkhaeuser.de 2026-04-18 16:33

@cwebber@social.coop @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @ossguy@fedi.copyleft.org @richardfontana@mastodon.social Worse IMHO is that we're putting FOSS as a movement at risk if we deskill everyone to the point where you either pay money to have code generated for you, or there is no code.

Open ##2900967
@richardfontana@mastodon.social 2026-04-18 16:40

@cwebber@social.coop copyleft-only LLM is nonsensical , agreed @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @ossguy@fedi.copyleft.org

Open ##2900971
@fuzzychef@m6n.io 2026-04-18 16:49

@cwebber@social.coop @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @ossguy@fedi.copyleft.org @richardfontana@mastodon.social Based on my following of current legal cases, I think it's entirely possible that in a year or two we'll suddenly be rolling large OSS codebases back to 2023. And won't that be fun!

Open ##2900974
@jedbrown@hachyderm.io 2026-04-18 20:58

@cwebber@social.coop I agree about the hazard. LLM outputs should be considered derivative of all their inputs unless established otherwise. LLMs manipulate expression, not ideas, and the propensity of verbatim reproduction (up to and including entire books) is evidence of that process. Note that the purpose of the "substantial similarity" test is as circumstantial evidence of process. I think the counterpoints are "mutually-assured destruction" and/or "yolo denial-of-service attack on copyright will win because power likes it". "AI" companies are still delaying cases from 2022 (like Doe v GitHub) because they want a jury who believes it is inevitable. Plaintiffs seek to win their cases, not to establish broad precedent. OpenAI has already lost (in German court) on copyright infringement of their outputs, arguing unsuccessfully that the infringement is the sole responsibility of their customers for prompting. The political reality of public sentiment is changing and collapse of the financial bubble will greatly alter the power held by "AI" companies. Meanwhile, I think the words of the DCO ought to mean something, even for those who are certain they are a smol bean. https://hachyderm.io/@jedbrown/114931171543347621 @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @ossguy@fedi.copyleft.org @richardfontana@mastodon.social

Open ##2900980
@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org 2026-04-18 22:13

@cwebber@social.coop Re: “polluting”, my reply is: https://fedi.copyleft.org/@bkuhn/116426437134023846 (elsewhere in thread). Re: “copyleft-only #LLM”: I didn't propose that. I proposed copylefting the human-modified output of LLMs. Re: “two scenarios”: IMO you propose a false dichotomy. I hope you come to one of #SFC's public sessions on this, as I'd be glad to talk more about it, & this discussion doesn't lend itself to online debate because it's so complex. cc: @ossguy@fedi.copyleft.org @richardfontana@mastodon.social @jedbrown@hachyderm.io #AI #OpenSource #FOSS

Open ##2900983
@larsmb@mastodon.online 2026-04-18 23:02

@cwebber@social.coop @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @ossguy@fedi.copyleft.org @richardfontana@mastodon.social FWIW, I'd be delighted to read this as a blog post. I'm still baffled that chardet just sidestepped this via 0BSD, sort of. A thought that recently struck me that, if code is essentially impossible to license now, will we see a resurgence in other forms of IP, like ... software patents? Those *would* be defensible post-laundering ...

Open ##2900985
@RueNahcMohr@infosec.exchange 2026-04-19 19:07

@cwebber@social.coop @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @ossguy@fedi.copyleft.org @richardfontana@mastodon.social Taking technical debt to new highs. I'm waiting for LLMs that can tear down copyright programs from binary images and rewrite them as opensource. oh see the sparks fly then!

Open ##2900986
@adingbatponder@fosstodon.org 2026-04-19 19:52

@cwebber@social.coop @bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @ossguy@fedi.copyleft.org @richardfontana@mastodon.social This seems important. Can one not have a branch with only human contributions and a branch with "anything goes". If one cannot check if a code chunk has been made by AI then what can be done instead?

Open ##2900990