Re: Capy: Request for endorsements

Andrey Semashev wrote:
> There are many open source licenses out there, and there are all kinds of
> conditions in them, most not related to possible profits to be made by the
> original holders. For example, GPL family of licenses are forcing the derived
> work to be covered under GPL as well, and not doing that would still be a
> violation, regardless of the profits or losses.

Maybe in Germany. :-)

> Attribution is another aspect that many licenses cover. E.g. does one have to
> retain attribution to the author(s) of the original source for a piece of code
> that was produced by an LLM?

We'll see. I'm not worried.

The situation here is, you read GPL code, and then you write your own code
using only the knowledge you've obtained, without reproducing any code
snippet exactly or approximately (e.g. only changing the identifiers.)

Is your code GPL?

That's, incidentally, why I dislike the GPL. It's a trap because it gives you
the code to read and then claims that you don't have the right to use the
knowledge so obtained.

But I doubt that anyone would be able to prove GPL violation for AI
generated code, unless the original is reproduced exactly. And exact
reproduction only happens when the source material is so scarce that
the thing you're asking the LLM to output has to be a copy.

This is essentially not going to happen with source code. It's not like
famous photographs.


_______________________________________________
Boost mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
https://lists.boost.org/mailman3/lists/boost.lists.boost.org/
Archived at: https://lists.boost.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/EOUDPWWIC7QVULZYM4K7WXEY4D5B3BWH/