Re: GCC AI Policy Announcement

> Am 02.08.2026 um 00:06 schrieb Sam James <[email protected]>:
>=20
> =EF=BB=BFThomas Koenig via Gcc <[email protected]> writes:
>=20
>> Am 01.08.26 um 21:00 schrieb Sam James:
>>>> What happens if a patch contains a non-trival amount of code that
>>>> cannot be copyrighted because it was assisted by AI?
>>> The open questions around this are why the GNU project issued
>>> provisional guidance to reject significant contributions developed with
>>> an LLM.
>>> If it is copyrightable, then who owns the copyright? If it's based
>>> on
>>> the training data, then the contributor may not have the rights to
>>> share such a patch, and it cannot be legally redistributed under the GPL=

>>> (or any licence).
>>=20
>> That is one of the clearer points right now - LLM-generated code cannot
>> be copyrighted.
>=20
> Again, the GNU project guidance was to wait. Anyway, if this is the
> case, you can launder any GPL project.

I=E2=80=99m not sure this would be legally sound given the LLM had access to=
 the GPL project during training at least, so you cannot claim clean-room en=
gineering.

Richard=20

> <signature.asc>