Post #574160
2026-03-06 19:54 UTC
Replies (9)
-
@soph@grrl.me 2026-03-06 19:56
That said, I think all of this reveals some really important desires and needs in software development: - People want tools that are more interactive and also more independent. Something that can do more per interaction means you can focus on higher level concerns - There is an opportunity here to bring coding to more people, to make it more accessible. Conversational approaches to coding could be beneficial. We can do the above without theft now that the shape is clearer.
-
@michalfita@mastodon.social 2026-03-06 20:20
@soph@grrl.me Assuming that's understood. Can we, the humans, draw boundary between violating and meeting the novum IP rules? What use of LLMs as tools would let us pass the test?
-
@tyzbit@toot.now 2026-03-06 21:23
@soph@grrl.me if my goal was to taint open source from a legal as well as a functional standpoint, LLMs would be a dream come true
-
@PierricD@mastodon.green 2026-03-07 11:29
@soph@grrl.me I'm not an expert at all when it comes to licenses but I think that if I was to release code that was heavily vibe coded, I would feel compelled to release it under public domain.
-
@yosh@toot.yosh.is 2026-03-07 22:33
@soph@grrl.me Am I right that by "vibe-coding" you mean "generating code, with no to little human involvement in the process". Which would be different than: "using tools to generate code, but with a human actively in the loop". I believe the crux of the case in the US was that the defendant claimed they did not create the works, a machine did, and because non-humans cannot claim IP protections they lost the case. Or did I misunderstand something about that case?
-
@StevenSaus@faithcollapsing.com 2026-03-11 20:48
@soph@grrl.me @mcc@mastodon.social (Asking in order to be corrected) My understanding is that the current precedent and the position of the US Copyright Office is that human authorship must be there for a work to by copyrighted. Wouldn't that be an endpoint for looking for what the appropriate usage rights (at least in the US), e.g. that it's free to use? Or is this one of those things where there's a very specific definition of FOSS/OSS that I'm blurring/ignorant of? https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf
-
@Orb2069@mastodon.online 2026-03-11 21:16
@soph@grrl.me Oddly enough, the people who can't be bothered to write their own code ALSO can't be bothered to grapple with the responsibilities and legal repercussions of their actions. Go fig.
-
@mark@mastodon.fixermark.com 2026-03-11 21:26
@soph@grrl.me Interesting: do you have a citation for vibe-code failing legal checks? No issue if you don't, I can hop on Google and find it, but this would be the first I'd heard of it (most of what I've heard is that LLM output is uncopyrightable, not that it violates someone else's copyright). The reason I ask is that I'm aware of corporate contexts where it's being used and if the courts are leaning towards declaring them copyright violations that could have significant implications (declaring them non-copyrightable probably less so; in practice most companies protect source code as trade-secret because it's hard to prove provenance in a court-of-law... Or by moving so fast that a competitor exfiltrating an out-of-date chunk of source isn't super useful or would require the competitor to also have the hardware / architecture the code "lives" in).
-
@dpp@mastodon.social 2026-03-22 11:16
@soph@grrl.me a bunch of these arguments were made back in the 1970s and were resolved in the chess player cases… yes, the ROM in the chess players were subject to copyright despite being machine translations of source code. AI output is a machine translation of prompts. Where is the creative expression?