Hi, The "6.2 Legally Significant Changes" section in prep/maintain explains what is legally significant and what is not.
What is the context of this section? Is that valid for most
Jurisdictions?
What looks strange for me is that:
> A change of just a few lines (less than 15 or so) is not legally
> significant for copyright
But I'm not a lawyer and I also don't know the context in which this
was written.
For instance maybe the intent was to enforce copyleft ("we need
copyright papers for that contribution"), and in that case we might
choose to not spend too much effort on contributions for which we are
not sure if they are copyrightable or not.
My question is related to what Richard Stallman asked in the "Please do
not install code generated by LLMs into GNU packages", specifically:
> Until the FSF states a conclusion, please don't install or accept any
> LLM-generated code into your GNU packages.
If what is in "Legally Significant Changes" is still correct in this
context, if the change is not legally significant, or if there is
clear indication that the change isn't a derived work from work
potentially under an incompatible license, can we still incorporate
such change knowing that it might not be copyleft but that it would at
least be legal to include in the project?
The context here is that Guix is discussing a policy for banning the
use of LLMs in some cases but it also originally included an exception
for contributions under 15 lines, and I think that having more context
here on "6.2 Legally Significant Changes" could help inform the
discussion.
And personally I'm also advocating for complementing the rules we
already have to make sure that the Guix policy on LLMs don't
accidentally conflict with these rules, so this also requires to
actually understand these rules, hence this email.
References:
-----------
[1]https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Legally-Significant.html
Denis.
pgp601wx4VTlS.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
