I know what copyleft licenses are about, that was covered in the post - if you read it. If you are saying that you are making long comments without reading the post, great I guess, but not super interesting (to me).

I’m not really interested in getting into an argument around license choice because I wasn’t advocating for any particular license (like you seem to be).

I said I was focusing on copyleft, cool that you ignored the entire post though. 😑

But any source code leak is also open sourcing in that world.

I don’t see how that helps free software, though. Those programmers got paid. Volunteers didn’t.

It ends up with a weird reverse robin hood situation. LLM vendors steal from the poor, sell that to the rich. Do the rich give back? Only if it is stolen from them.

Can I legally reverse engineer AI generated software?

If you have the source, why would you need to?

Can you even put terms and conditions on this supposed public domain copyright free compiled software product?

You can put terms on anything, but you can’t protect the underlying asset if someone breaks your terms. Think of the code produced by Grsecruity that they put behind a paywall – people were free to release the code (since it was licensed as open source as a derivative work), but obviously Grsecruity was able to discontinue their agreement with their clients who would do so.

Is the compiled version even different than the raw AI generated source code in its ability to be licensed?

People aren’t generally licensing compiled binaries as open source, since you can’t produce derivative works from them. But I think that if there is no copyright protection for the work, compiling it doesn’t change the copyrightability. Curious what you think.

What rights does one have to AI generated code? Be it compiled or source. It’s surely not just communal.

Why is that surely the case? It is public domain - that is the most “communal” you can get for copyright.

I have seen this sentiment, but I don’t know what the world looks like without copyright protections for creative works.

Does open source exist in your vision? How?

My imagination for this topic may not be as expansive as yours, but my interpretation is that if people contribute code to the commons, it will immediately available for any use - including for use by massive corporations.

So it ends up looking like people working for big companies for free.

as soon as it’s modified by a human in nontrivial ways

is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

We know that people are using coding LLMs as slot machines - pull the handle and see if it solves your problem. Where is the human modifying anything? That is a “straight dump” of AI output without modifications.

Honestly, if AI destroys copyright, it’s the best thing it can do.

I have seen this being said, but I really don’t understand it. Just because copyright can be abused doesn’t mean (to me) that we ought to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

If copyright no longer exists, what incentive do people have to share copyleft code at all? It clearly would no longer exist, so can you help me understand how both copyright can be dead and open source exist? Or are you simply accepting that rather than copyright, we are using trade secrets (like the KFC chicken recipe) to protect works?

How does this apply to software made by, say, Anthropic? They proudly say Claude Code is written by AI. If it can’t be copywritten, or licensed, then it’s just a matter of figuring out how to acquire a copy of the source code, and you could do whatever with it. Right?

If you were on Mastodon last week when the Claude source code was released (by Claude, accidentally), people were joking about how Anthropic was trying to use the DMCA to get the source removed from websites – even though clearly, copyrights don’t apply, since the code is clearly in the public domain.

If the LLM wrote the code, it is uncopyrightable.

All works created by a person are copyright by default, so people need to release their works to allow others to build on it or use it (except for the limited uses allowed by fair use). Like-minded people have come up with various licenses that allow people to release their works in ways that people prefer.

Except for the fact that it is public domain and not protected by the open source license that the code is ostensibly submitted under.

deleted by creator

What is the purpose of this message?

But also, yes, i love the cliche because people just moan on lemmy about things instead of actively addressing the issue with the appropriate people on the appropriate mediums.

Airing your grievances out here is fun though. I get it. but asking the people upset about it to do some work is also fun.

Awfully ironic to say this, now that “code is free”. What work are we talking about?

Well, you could import the same policies into Firefox that LibreWolf uses, or it might be some workaround in your graphics driver that acts on the filename of the Firefox executable.

Obviously you don’t need to test, but just throwing out ideas if you would want to.

Might just be a Firefox bug, since it’s a very light fork. Try Firefox and see if it does the same thing.

Why do you want people to stop discussing this? Are you running community management for Mozilla? If not, why is discussing it not “addressing the issue”? People are engaging in discourse.

I’m seeing closed bugs from 2021 here, are we supposed to take these seriously?

Could you link to a real issue so we aren’t guessing about what we are looking at?

What fingerprint issues are you aware of?

It’d be nice if they even pleased the open AI enthusiasts, but they can’t even manage that.

That was what I installed on a Windows VM last week. Such a nice installer, too!