Re: GCC AI Policy Announcement

> I don't think it's a clear cut as that.  Consider the analogies.  A
> compiler (eg, gcc) compiles a piece of source code to produce an
> executable.  That source code has copyright owned by its author; the
> resulting binary also has copyright owned by the author, but gcc (to
> the extent that has translated the code from one form, source, to
> another, executable) does not gain a copyright interest in the
> output - this is, of course, setting aside any library code that
> might be combined with the compiled code.
>
> Setting aside, for the moment, the training data used, an LLM is
> arguably similar, it's a tool and as a tool cannot gain any
> copyright interest, since copyright is held to be an expression of
> something by a human; but there's still copyright in the result, as
> a consequence of the input that was used to drive the LLM - how much
> will depend on what guidance the LLM was given in that process.  

This is *precisely* part of the debate occuring in the
gnu-prog-discuss email list.  I suggest that we not have it here as
well.  You may want to join the discussion there.  I think your
perspective would add to that discussion.

(For what it's worth, I agree with you completely.)