Re: GR -- Allow AI-Assisted Contributions

On Fri, Feb 20, 2026 at 01:39:10PM +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
>On Thu Feb 19, 2026 at 9:53 AM GMT, Jonathan Carter wrote:
>> In terms of LLMs, I agree with the sentiment of others that they are in
>> many ways, mass plagiarism tools.
>...
>> For example, a few weeks ago I was working late one night and I couldn't
>> put my finger on it, but my one loop just looked really wrong and ugly,
>> so I searched on duck duck go to go find some patterns that look nice
>> that fit my use case, and Duck Duck AI popped up and suggested a very
>> neat and elegant list comprehension that was such an obviously good
>> choice, that I really should have thought of it in the first place.
>
>Personally, as part of refining my own position on these matters, I've wanted
>to explore the idea of what would be acceptable to me, wrt copyright, to
>harness the value you demonstrate in your anecdote.
>
>An LLM which was solely trained on a corpus of free software with
>intra-compatible licensing (for the sake of this example say, GPL2 or later,
>and anything compatible with it), such that we declare the resulting
>weightings to be a derivative, licensed GPL2+, and attribute the authorship
>to the union of authorship of *all* the inputs, and consider anything it
>outputs to be a derivative, likewise GPL2+. Would that be acceptable? Would
>that be useful?

Thanks - that's a useful thought experiment, even if maybe not
practical as other people are asserting.