Post #2900961

2026-04-18 15:34 UTC

@cwebber@social.coop I agree with @ossguy@fedi.copyleft.org in particular because if *we* are copylefting our code (even if assisted by #LLM-backed gen-#AI), we won't face a copyleft claim later. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely these LLMs are (a) trained on proprietary software, and (b) any proprietary software company that so-trained would later claim infringement. #Microsoft has all but admitted they refuse to train Copilot on their own code anyway. Cc: @LordCaramac@discordian.social @richardfontana@mastodon.social

Replies (1)

@cwebber@social.coop 2026-04-18 16:26

@bkuhn@fedi.copyleft.org @ossguy@fedi.copyleft.org @LordCaramac@discordian.social @richardfontana@mastodon.social - There are plenty of FOSS projects we care about which are not under copyleft. What terms should they consider received code under? Should SDL now consider all LLM based output under the GPL? The AGPL? Which? Do you expect such a project to switch its license to copyleft now? - Microsoft's proprietary code may not be, but plenty of proprietary code is available under extremely non-FOSS and restrictive licenses which are within datasets we are getting contributions from *today* - The mutually assured destruction "safe option" isn't that things are under copyleft for proprietary companies though, that's still a losing scenario for them. So that doesn't help the case for copyleft, only accepting that LLM output under the public domain is (which we don't know)

Open ##2900962