Obv GCC has different license type and they're much more serious about copyright than GHC ever did, so opinion from a qualified person would be valuable there.
On 8/20/26 16:00, damiancoding--- via ghc-devs wrote:
Let me copy the emails in here. First Andreas quoted my original email, then he wrote: Dear Haskell Foundation,I'm contacting the HF as I think it would be helpful to get legal expertise through a legal consultation or similar to help inform AI policies and handling of LLM generated source contributions in various haskell projects. In particular getting answers to these questions would be valuable: ========================== Soundness of the "content right waivers" from popular LLM providers. These attempt to assign rights for generated content to users. Legal expertise about risks associated with above waivers, in particular due to clauses that might retroactively extinguish these rights due to terms of use violations would be welcome. Consequences and potential risks when parts of a code base are not legally protected by copyright due non-copyrightable material. Are there unexpected consequences like changes to (lack of) liability for contributors, maintainers or organizations owning such projects? Especially for commonly used licenses in the haskell eco system (BSD3, MIT, (L)GPL, Apache2). Risk assessment for becoming liable for copyright infringement due to accidental similarity in LLM output to copyrighted material. Or any other legal pitfalls related to these subjects that we as legal laymen would be likely to miss. ========================== I think it would be great if the HF could provide information and/or guidance on these issues driven by legal expertise. Please let me know if you think this could be arranged. I've attached the discussion from which these questions arose below for additional context. Best wishes Andreas ------------Then, Laurent P. René de Cotret <[email protected]> wrote the email went straight to spam, and then he replied the following, copying in <Simon Peyton Jones>, <Ben Gamari>, and the user <board>Thank you for your patience, Andreas. Thank you for your patience, Andreas. The Haskell Foundation Board discussed the issue, and the consensus is that dedicating HF resources to legal advice regarding LLMs is not a good use of our resources. It's not that the questions are not important, but rather that this isn't Haskell-specific. If a larger body decides to get involved (e.g. the Free Software Foundation), the Haskell Foundation could collaborate as part of a larger coalition. Best regards, Laurent ---------- Laurent P. René de Cotret Chair, Haskell FoundationThat's a pretty bad answer. Why does it matter if those questions are "Haskell specific"? We're talking about the specific impact on the GHC code base and its legal status. It doesn't matter if those are questions that also need to be answered by other projects, WE have to answer them for ourselves. That's like saying you don't need health insurance as an electrician because health insurance "isn't electrician specific". Sorry, but that's just plain nonsense and irresponsible. I question Laurent's legal instincts as a whole. The optics of this are pretty bad. _______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
OpenPGP_0x9799889AAA1BFBE3.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
