> Am 02.08.2026 um 00:06 schrieb Sam James <[email protected]>:
>
> Thomas Koenig via Gcc <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> Am 01.08.26 um 21:00 schrieb Sam James:
>>>> 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.
>
> Again, the GNU project guidance was to wait. Anyway, if this is the
> case, you can launder any GPL project.
I’m not sure this would be legally sound given the LLM had access to the GPL
project during training at least, so you cannot claim clean-room engineering.
Richard
> <signature.asc>
