Re: [SUBMISSION] AI-MIT License 1 .0 — permissive license for AI-generated code
Andrew Katz <[email protected]> Wed, 18 Mar 2026 11:36:11 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.licenses.open-source.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--===============7879428923728284172== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_331581AF-AF5F-4FA1-B995-1F790D6FD595" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit --Apple-Mail=_331581AF-AF5F-4FA1-B995-1F790D6FD595 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Hi Bruce > On 17 Mar 2026, at 19:38, Bruce Perens via License-discuss = <[email protected]> wrote: >=20 > This is why I started deprecating Open Hardware licenses. Schematics = are not currently copyrightable, and what if they were? Perhaps Horowitz = and Hill's "Art of Electronics" textbook would be collecting royalties = from every electronic product worldwide.=20 >=20 > Bruce Perens K6BP >=20 You raise a very good point, and I have a few observations: 1. (Not surprisingly) this list has a bias towards US copyright law, but = it=E2=80=99s worth pointing out that the scope of copyrightability (and = similar IP rights) varies significantly from jurisdiction to = jurisdiction. In the UK, for example, computer-generated works are = explicitly given copyright protection (s9(3) CDPA 1988 as amended [1]). = We also have database right (as they do in the EU). Since open source = licences are used worldwide, it=E2=80=99s sensible to take a global view = where possible.=20 2. So far as schematics are concerned, they could *potentially*, if = complex enough, be regarded as a database of the nodes (although I admit = it=E2=80=99s difficult to see how this does square with some of the = requirements for database right protection in the UK and EU), but, if = hand-drawn, they would almost certainly under UK law, be regarded as an = artistic work, and they could, therefore, if machine generated, be = regarded as a computer generated work. (Of course, it may be possible to = remove the expressive element from the schematics, but there=E2=80=99s = currently quite a lot of tension in UK copyright law around the = idea/expression distinction. This partially arises from a difficulty in = reconciling s9(3) and EU copyright law which requires that the work is = the =E2=80=9Cauthor=E2=80=99s own intellectual creation=E2=80=9D [2]. EU = Copyright law still underpins UK copyright law, despite the fiasco of = Brexit. This was a major concern when we drafted the CERN OHL because we = didn=E2=80=99t want the licence to be seen as trying to exert any = control over the use of non-copyright (or other wise non-IP-affected) = materials. As it happens, I think we could be more explicit about this = point in the FAQs and rationale applicable to the CERN-OHL, and I may = propose some amendments accordingly. (On re-reading, I spotted one = assumption we made about enforcement of GPL by copyright holders only, = which may not be universally correct any more, so that needs = addressing).=20 3. I=E2=80=99m deeply concerned (and I think this echoes your concerns) = that acting as if IP rights exist, when they don=E2=80=99t, can be = dangerous. After a while, the courts (and even legislators) can rely on = this =E2=80=9Ccustom and practice=E2=80=9D to justify the creation of = intellectual property rights out of thin air, or to codify rights which = never existed in the first place. (We=E2=80=99ve seen this happen to TV = formats, for example). I have also seen some attempts by people and = organisations to establish a copyright norm which would beneficial to = them by publishing papers making certain assumptions. I therefore think = that we should be extremely wary of setting licensing norms around = AI-generated code, when the underlying ip rights themselves lack = clarity. Best Andrew Andrew Katz [1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/9 [2] = https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infopaq_International_A/S_v_Danske_Dagblades= _Forening --Apple-Mail=_331581AF-AF5F-4FA1-B995-1F790D6FD595 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 <html aria-label=3D"message body"><head><meta http-equiv=3D"content-type" = content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body = style=3D"overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; = line-break: after-white-space;">Hi Bruce<div><br = class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"> </div> <div><br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><div>On 17 Mar 2026, at 19:38, Bruce = Perens via License-discuss <[email protected]> = wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div = dir=3D"auto"><div>This is why I started deprecating Open Hardware = licenses. Schematics are not currently copyrightable, and what if they = were? Perhaps Horowitz and Hill's "Art of Electronics" textbook would be = collecting royalties from every electronic product = worldwide. </div><div><br></div><div = data-smartmail=3D"gmail_signature"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div = dir=3D"ltr"><div>Bruce Perens = K6BP</div></div></div></div></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br><div>Yo= u raise a very good point, and I have a few = observations:</div><div><br></div><div>1. (Not surprisingly) this list = has a bias towards US copyright law, but it=E2=80=99s worth pointing out = that the scope of copyrightability (and similar IP rights) varies = significantly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In the UK, for example, = computer-generated works are explicitly given copyright protection = (s9(3) CDPA 1988 as amended [1]). We also have database right (as they = do in the EU). Since open source licences are used worldwide, it=E2=80=99s= sensible to take a global view where = possible. </div><div><br></div><div>2. So far as schematics are = concerned, they could *potentially*, if complex enough, be regarded as a = database of the nodes (although I admit it=E2=80=99s difficult to see = how this does square with some of the requirements for database right = protection in the UK and EU), but, if hand-drawn, they would almost = certainly under UK law, be regarded as an artistic work, and they could, = therefore, if machine generated, be regarded as a computer generated = work. (Of course, it may be possible to remove the expressive element = from the schematics, but there=E2=80=99s currently quite a lot of = tension in UK copyright law around the idea/expression distinction. This = partially arises from a difficulty in reconciling s9(3) and EU copyright = law which requires that the work is the =E2=80=9Cauthor=E2=80=99s own = intellectual creation=E2=80=9D [2]. EU Copyright law still underpins UK = copyright law, despite the fiasco of = Brexit.</div><div><br></div><div>This was a major concern when we = drafted the CERN OHL because we didn=E2=80=99t want the licence to be = seen as trying to exert any control over the use of non-copyright (or = other wise non-IP-affected) materials. As it happens, I think we could = be more explicit about this point in the FAQs and rationale applicable = to the CERN-OHL, and I may propose some amendments accordingly. (On = re-reading, I spotted one assumption we made about enforcement of GPL by = copyright holders only, which may not be universally correct any = more, so that needs addressing). </div><div><br></div><div>3. I=E2=80= =99m deeply concerned (and I think this echoes your concerns) that = acting as if IP rights exist, when they don=E2=80=99t, can be dangerous. = After a while, the courts (and even legislators) can rely on this = =E2=80=9Ccustom and practice=E2=80=9D to justify the creation of = intellectual property rights out of thin air, or to codify rights which = never existed in the first place. (We=E2=80=99ve seen this happen to TV = formats, for example). I have also seen some attempts by people and = organisations to establish a copyright norm which would beneficial to = them by publishing papers making certain assumptions. I therefore think = that we should be extremely wary of setting licensing norms around = AI-generated code, when the underlying ip rights themselves lack = clarity.</div><div><br></div><div>Best</div><div><br></div><div><br></div>= <div>Andrew</div><div><br></div><div>Andrew = Katz</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>[1] <a = href=3D"https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/9">https://ww= w.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/9</a></div><div>[2] https:= //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infopaq_International_A/S_v_Danske_Dagblades_Foren= ing</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></body></html>= --Apple-Mail=_331581AF-AF5F-4FA1-B995-1F790D6FD595-- --===============7879428923728284172== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KVGhlIG9waW5p b25zIGV4cHJlc3NlZCBpbiB0aGlzIGVtYWlsIGFyZSB0aG9zZSBvZiB0aGUgc2VuZGVyIGFuZCBu b3QgbmVjZXNzYXJpbHkgdGhvc2Ugb2YgdGhlIE9wZW4gU291cmNlIEluaXRpYXRpdmUuIE9mZmlj aWFsIHN0YXRlbWVudHMgYnkgdGhlIE9wZW4gU291cmNlIEluaXRpYXRpdmUgd2lsbCBiZSBzZW50 IGZyb20gYW4gb3BlbnNvdXJjZS5vcmcgZW1haWwgYWRkcmVzcy4KCkxpY2Vuc2UtZGlzY3VzcyBt YWlsaW5nIGxpc3QKTGljZW5zZS1kaXNjdXNzQGxpc3RzLm9wZW5zb3VyY2Uub3JnCmh0dHA6Ly9s aXN0cy5vcGVuc291cmNlLm9yZy9tYWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2xpY2Vuc2UtZGlzY3Vzc19saXN0 cy5vcGVuc291cmNlLm9yZwo= --===============7879428923728284172==--