Re: GCC AI Policy Announcement

On Mon, Aug 3, 2026 at 2:16=E2=80=AFPM Richard Kenner <[email protected]> =
wrote:
>
> > 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.

It seems to be a closed list though, at least with no accessible
archives.

Richard.

> I think your
> perspective would add to that discussion.
>
> (For what it's worth, I agree with you completely.)