"Teylu, Andrew via Gcc" <[email protected]> writes: >> >> What happens if a patch contains a non-trival amount of code that >> >> cannot be copyrighted because it was assisted by AI? >> > The open questions around this are why the GNU project issued >> > provisional guidance to reject significant contributions developed with >> > an LLM. >> > >> > If it is copyrightable, then who owns the copyright? If it's based on >> > the training data, then the contributor may not have the rights to >> > share such a patch, and it cannot be legally redistributed under the GPL >> > (or any licence). >> >> That is one of the clearer points right now - LLM-generated code cannot >> be copyrighted. >> >> If somebody significantly modifies LLM-generated code, then that person >> gains copyright (which would also be fine). >> >> And if anybody ever finds that training data fed to an LLM lead to >> copyright on the generated code... this would be such a huge upset >> of the software and other industries that anything about GNU software >> and gcc would pale by comparison, by so many orders of magnitude >> that it would be ridiculous. >> >> It seems that the risk assessment leading to the current policy is >> at variance with what everybody else's risk assessment, and frankly, >> I do not think that this is justified. >> > > As just one other voice: I agree with Thomas here. > >> And this policy, if it is held up over a long period of time, >> has the potential of significantly holding back gcc's development, >> both in absolute terms and in relation to its competitors, for >> example LLVM. >> >> I have an e-mail in my inbox with some details of a very worthwhile >> project, where gfortran lags behind other compilers by large factors >> in speed. There is a LLM-generated prototype which would run >> afoul of the current rules, so it seems that avenue is currently >> closed. Oh well, then gfortran will continue to lag behind other >> compilers. >> >> To put it bluntly: The current policy is based on a risk assessment >> that nobody shares, and risks losing significant development speed >> over the competition. >> > > I have visions of the EGCS fork, where someone forks the current gcc, accepts > any and all LLM-generated patches, this then beats/supersedes the “real” gcc, > and then everyone starts to move to this other fork, creating an absolute mess > of the ecosystem.
They're free to do so. > >> Best regards >> >> Thomas
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
