> On 2026-04-13 03:09, Bruno Haible wrote: >> Anyone disagrees? >> Then, let's hope that the glibc people evaluate the legal risk in >> the same >> way and don't reject the patch... > > This a pretty clear-cut case of benign use of an LLM, as far as > copyright violations are concerned. > > Even a lawyer would tell you their advice in this area cannot be > relied upon 100%, for the reasons you mentioned (no court rulings so > far, etc.). In the meantime as long as we err on the side of caution > (as we are certainly doing here) we should be OK.
I would avoid using Co-authored-by this way, and use Assisted-by (or similar) instead. It is true there are a lot of legal aspects around LLMs that are not clear yet, but some things we _do_ know: at least in Spain and Europe, you have to be a physical person to hold authorship rights, and be either a physical person or a legal entity to hold explotiation rights. `Co-authored-by: Someprogram', taken literally, is a nonsense in such jurisdictions. Taken less literally, it is basically equivalent to `I hold no authorship nor copyright for parts of this patch, and I don't know who do'. I would personally reject such a patch unless it is entirely legally insignificant.
