I don't know where I have questioned the qualifications. Maybe you can help me point that out! Maybe it's just that people who do not have a qualifying degree in law should have an opinion on such matters relating to the law in the broadest sense? The implied asbestos connoisseur qualification, I will though reject, as I had no formal training in that either (same as law, as I pointed out before).
What I do disagree with is that all of this lives in some parallel universe, that is exclusively understandable by people who studied law at length. I know that notion gets pushed every now and then. Maybe I can just disclaim any liability for any contract I ever signed, simply on the basis that, well, it's legal text, and I can't possibly understand what it means as I don't have the necessary degree in law to fully grasp the implied ramifications. Discussing this topic is probably worthwhile. Having experts in the field help out here probably too. What are the reasonable practical options we do have? Can we invoke legal counsel for each and every Merge Request, for all applicable jurisdictions? Which are those? Do we need to reject contributions from people who are living in countries sanctioned by the United States? How would we even reasonably enforce this? Do we think that requesting indemnification from contributors for their contributions is practicable? How does this relate to past contributions? So yes, if someone feels the need and drive to have this discussion with legal scholars of course, having it would certainly be interesting and hopefully beneficial. I guess for legal coverage I should explicitly state in each and every of my emails that: - This is no legal advice! - This is no financial advice! - This email states my personal opinion. - This email does not reflect my employers (if any) opinion. - I do not claim to hold any relevant degrees. and maybe a litany of other disclaimers? On Mon, 3 Aug 2026 at 18:11, damiancoding--- via ghc-devs < [email protected]> wrote: > Moritz Angermann wrote: > > Hi Damian, > > > > As an asbestos connoisseur (srsly?) and not a scholar of the law, even > less > > across multitudes of jurisdictions. I'd like to posit the following: > > We have roughly three categories: > > > > 1. Restrictive (various form of licenses, EULA, ...) licensing which > tries > > to tell their users what they can, and can not do with the software. > > 2. Permissive (BSD, MIT, ...) which in spirit say: "Hey here's some code > > I'm proud of, please mention that your work was derived from this." > > 3. Copyleft (FSF/Gnu licenses), which kinda say: "Hey, here's some code > > I've created, and I'm happy for you to use it and modify it, but if you > > distribute, I'm putting obligations on you". > > > > Let's assume there is some violation to any of these: > > > > 1. There is probably some body who derives significant financial or other > > incentives from the licensing, and as such has a strong interest in > > ensuring said licenses are upheld if violated. > > 2. This is generally the "throwing code over the fence" situation, take > it > > or leave. If it is violated (e.g. someone didn't add the license/mention) > > is the author going to sue in court? The whole thing centers around an > > honor/honest system. Also oftentimes there are no financial incentives > > attached in a way that would make suing someone for said violation makes > > much sense. > > 3. This is a bit of an interesting case. There is a body (FSF) behind > > these, whose purpose it is to further software freedom, and the Gnu > > licenses are the vehicle for this. It's also the only OSS license that > has > > seen some court cases. And there are some cases in the West from which > one > > might be able to derive something. > > > > Now let's assume someone contributes significant LLM generated code to > > these, with the assumption that this code is not copyrightable, or > > potentially falls under copyright violations. > > > > 1. This is a problem, as your basis for claiming copyright and > subsequently > > enforcing licenses over code that you potentially can't claim ownership > > over is tricky, I guess. Legal scholars will certainly have their fun > with > > this, with probably different outcomes across different jurisdictions. > > 2. Again this license mostly says: hey here is some code I threw over the > > wall, please include the license and attribute that I curated this code, > > e.g. provide some lineage. > > 3. For the copyleft license to work, a much stronger ownership claim > needs > > to be made, e.g. if it is upheld that LLM output is uncopyrightable, and > > significant parts of the project end up with LLM generated content, the > > copyright, and thus validity of the copyleft license might be > questionable. > > (How can you enforce something over something you don't own?) > > > > This also explains why we see the stratification of LLM policies based on > > project philosophies, and licenses. > > > > 1. A proprietary licenses project with restrictive licenses runs the risk > > of inadvertently potentially including regurgitated copyleft code; which > > should courts at some point decide that said code is actually copyleft, > > might have poisoned the codebase enough to force it under a compatible > > copyleft license. > > 2. Somewhat similar problem of potentially poisoning the project to > > potentially having to adapt a copyleft license. This is really only an > > issue if there are downstream proprietary consumers. > > 3. These projects really have an incentive of making sure to stay pure to > > be able to uphold their copyleft claims. > > > > As we see businesses increasingly adopt LLMs in their day-to-day > > use--whether or not we think this is a good idea--they have a clear > > incentive to lobby for laws that do not poison their codebases and > > invalidate their licenses. Similarly for the LLM providers have similar > > incentives to make sure that the product they sell is compatible with the > > consumers they are trying to sell their product to. Given that lawyers > and > > lobbying is a rather expensive endeavor, I strongly suspect that we'll > see > > judgements similar to the non-copyright for purely LLM generated output, > > and human authorship going to play a central role in the US. This of > course > > is just my prediction, not legal advice, given my experience as an > asbestos > > connoisseur. > > > > This also seems to be reflecting in the LLM policies we see emerging: > > > > 1. corporations seem to make the judgement call that values LLM use above > > legal risks. And I think they generally have their own legal counsel > > involved in these decisions. In many corporate settings the use of LLMs > > seems to be permissible at this point. Restrictions on LLM providers may > > exist, and some providers offer indemnification in their enterprise > > offerings. > > 2. Permissive projects seem to be more relaxed in their LLM policies and > > mostly focus on the project's culture without being overly prescriptive. > > Generally seemingly leaning towards human authorship. > > 3. copyleft projects feeling the need to protect their purity to continue > > upholding their license claims going forward. > > Before we go too far in that direction, what's your Bar ID? > > Alternatively, if you don't believe in qualifications, can you give me > some tips on cardiology, process chemistry, or Finnish grammar? > > > There are of course projects in group 2, and group 1 that also opt for > less > > permissive LLM policies for various project reasons. I believe however, > on > > the whole, we do see more restrictive policies from copyleft projects > > compared to more permissive licenses projects, reflecting a somewhat > > different understanding of the project's identity around its code. > > > > A rather extreme take and thought experiment then is: shouldn't copyleft > > licensed projects campaign for excessive LLM use in permissive licensed > > projects, while being very strict about LLM use in their own codebase? > This > > might later open up the claim that substantial portions of copyleft code > > ended up in other projects, and as such those would have to be relicensed > > under copyleft licenses, if these claims hold up in court. Therefore if > the > > idealized goal is to make every software free software, not using LLMs > > oneselves but promoting their use, while hoping for favourable legal > > outcomes seems a viable although risky strategy. > > This isn't relevant to GHC > > > I think the counterpoint to this applies to a permissively licensed > project > > like GHC (as Andreas also outlined), the risk is mostly getting infected > by > > copyleft code enough to force a relicensing under copyleft terms. > > > > Ultimately I think the whole licensing topic is very interesting, yet > seems > > to be a different dimension to the questions concerning guidelines and > > acceptable behaviour around contributions, the initial policy tried to > > address. > > Yes, that is my point - there should be discussion of licensing and > copyright. The discussion should be had by people who are equipped to do > so. I am merely advocating for the discussion to be held. > > > As far as I see we have legal, behavioural and > > ethical/philosophical/ideological concerns around the use of LLMs. I > think > > we would probably do well to separate them out to address them, rather > than > > lumping them together, which is where misunderstandings happen. I don't > > think there is a natural correlation between these dimensions. I also > > believe each of these dimensions should be taken seriously. What the > > conclusion will be, I don't know; it could be that an additional policy, > or > > mission/identity statement, or license or ... will be the end result. > The > > more precise and clear our policies are, the better it will be for the > > project. Solving something indirectly or by proxy will only lead to > > uncertainty, confusion, relitigation and debates. > > > > Best, > > Moritz > > > > On Fri, 31 Jul 2026 at 15:09, damiancoding--- via ghc-devs < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > I have thus far been perusing the LLM policy discussion from the > > > bleachers. A lot of conversation has been had about the ethical and > > > practical reasons to support or abolish LLM use for GHC. > > > However, one really important point seems to have been all but omitted > > > from the conversation, and that is the legal aspect. > > > GHC, like any other project using any licensing at all, enjoys > protections > > > based in the legal system of every country it is being used and > developed > > > in. That is no small thing and is essentially what allows GHC to exist > in > > > the legal sense. A body of work untethered from this is like a person > > > without citizenship - no one will advocate for it, and no government > will > > > back up legitimate claims around it by enforcing laws and regulations. > > > It is the contention of some legal scholars that having a significant > (not > > > large or overwhelming, merely significant) amount of AI based > contributions > > > in a body of work can lead to lack of recognition of its copyright in > > > court. This opinion is already backed up by case law relating to art: > > > https://www.theverge.com/policy/887678/supreme-court-ai-art-copyright > > > Such a status would put the project's protections in danger legally and > > > could turn to foil the efforts of GHC contributors over the past > numerous > > > years. > > > Of course, art is not code, and I would say many people's code is not > > > art... but absence of proof is not proof of absence. This is merely > legal > > > limbo, not legal certainty, and early indications suggest the tree may > fall > > > on the house. > > > In fact, who is to say that at least in some jurisdictions, AI > companies > > > couldn't go rogue and turn around and say anything that's been > generated > > > does not belong to you intellectually - it belongs to the model, and > > > therefore to its owner, the AI company? Of course, there are > explainers and > > > assurances, but none of this is legally tested. As someone who has > advised > > > on, joined, and started lawsuits in more than a handful different legal > > > systems, I can tell you that they are all very idiosyncratic and there > is > > > no common-sense to any of them. Local law can be extremely surprising > and > > > in fact one place's laws can contradict another place's laws. > > > There are also secondary effects as well. For example, can you get > public > > > funding for such a project? Can you be recommended by government > entities > > > and various organizations? Can you use or contribute to such work as a > > > university employee, researcher, or student? This last one is > particularly > > > important for a project that lives and dies by the ability of > researchers > > > to contribute to it. > > > I may have simply missed it in the deluge, but I have found that there > has > > > been little to no discussion of the effect of LLM contributions on the > > > copyright of GHC. Perhaps before entering this "Brave New World", we > should > > > see if the ice is too thin to walk on. > > > Especially during war time, there has been a multitude of legal > documents > > > that were proof of citizenship to one area or another. Sometimes they > > > looked like the blue British passport that is all the rage these days, > > > sometimes they were a tattered piece of paper in an envelope of you > were > > > lucky, with nothing more to certify its authenticity than a stamp, and > a > > > block-letter name written by someone who barely ever held a pen, at an > > > outpost in the deep forest. This may have been all that a person, > coming > > > from a country that may not even exist anymore due to changes in war, > has > > > to go on for legal recognition as a citizen of any country. Many times > such > > > documents were ad-hoc or provisional and there wasn't even a way to > check > > > them for authenticity or correctness, if the checking was being done > by a > > > person a thousand miles away from the document's origin and who is not > even > > > able to read the alphabet let alone the language. Very often such > documents > > > would not be recognized; it was as much dep > > > endent on the politics of the day (does the Soviet Union recognize the > > > Croatians?) as on whether you had a pack of cigarettes to share with > the > > > militia man patrolling the path you were on. A solid passport from a > > > powerful country got you out of trouble. > > > The legal system around LLM contributions is changing. Very little of > it > > > is proven and what has been proven so far shows that they enjoy no > > > protection. For better or worse whatever imaginary lines on the ground > we > > > imagine and agree upon within our little tribe will be completely > > > disregarded and obliterated by the machine of war that sets out the > order > > > as the legal system solidifies. To understand how this can lead to > > > disappointment, just ask people in Finland whether they are nostalgic > for > > > their lost territory. > > > I believe the integration of LLM based output into GHC is an issue that > > > requires prudence far beyond "community consensus", "robust > conversations", > > > and "good proposals". It can clearly have ramifications of legal, > > > compliance, civic, policy, and otherwise government-related nature, > should > > > be treated seriously as such, and therefore the project should source > > > informed analysis and recommendation from those whose job it is to do > so. > > > This in particular means we should be hiring and listening to impartial > > > professionals and not sounding off as developers who don't know the > first > > > thing about such matters. > > > I say all this as someone who uses AI on the daily and has worked at a > > > frontier AI lab that has been acquired by interests related to the US > > > government. I think GHC is more important than being able to work on it > > > with specific techniques. Everyone employing asbestos had the best > > > intentions and could never have known where it would lead, but out of > this > > > period in history we have learned to be careful about employing new > > > technology. Currently, the only people talking about this on this list > are > > > asbestos users and carpenters, and no one's thought to ask the doctors > or > > > physicists. > > > With best regards, > > > Damian > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] > > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > > > _______________________________________________ > ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
