The GNU Compiler Collection will reject copyright-significant contributions derived from LLM output, with limited exceptions for trivial changes and test cases.
Yeah, LLM code is fundamentally incompatible with FOSS licensing because you fundamentally cannot vet the codebases that it was trained from. The fact that this is ignored in most other places speaks to how well the LLM propaganda and astroturfing has worked.
I have non FOSS projects that my company writes / sells (I’ve written these for over 20 years, but only owned them for 3, and opening the existing source is complicated as it’s tangled deeply with non OSS projects).
I don’t allow LLM generated code in our products either, since I have to assume that most of training was done on public repos, and there’s no way to know what licenses existed on that code (in addition to all of the other valid arguments to not use that shit).
I don’t think it is just propaganda. Most people (especially non coders) do not understand licensee and copyright, or Open Source and GPL at all. Or don’t care anyway. Sure there is some propaganda, especially from big tech companies, who don’t want to talk about the issues because they (think) to benefit from the tech. I just think its worse than “just” propaganda, with the previous mentioned issues.
So many things shouldn’t have copyright protection in the first place. Code is up there on the list imo. Patents as well for that measure. You likely benefit from millions of cases of both infringement and design “theft” but it legitimately just stiffles industry, keeps the lawyers rich, and usually leaves the indie industry competitive only by the graces of a monopolistic capitalist body hoping to hold up straw man examples.
Yeah, LLM code is fundamentally incompatible with FOSS licensing because you fundamentally cannot vet the codebases that it was trained from. The fact that this is ignored in most other places speaks to how well the LLM propaganda and astroturfing has worked.
IMO proprietary code has this same risk.
I have non FOSS projects that my company writes / sells (I’ve written these for over 20 years, but only owned them for 3, and opening the existing source is complicated as it’s tangled deeply with non OSS projects).
I don’t allow LLM generated code in our products either, since I have to assume that most of training was done on public repos, and there’s no way to know what licenses existed on that code (in addition to all of the other valid arguments to not use that shit).
I don’t think it is just propaganda. Most people (especially non coders) do not understand licensee and copyright, or Open Source and GPL at all. Or don’t care anyway. Sure there is some propaganda, especially from big tech companies, who don’t want to talk about the issues because they (think) to benefit from the tech. I just think its worse than “just” propaganda, with the previous mentioned issues.
So many things shouldn’t have copyright protection in the first place. Code is up there on the list imo. Patents as well for that measure. You likely benefit from millions of cases of both infringement and design “theft” but it legitimately just stiffles industry, keeps the lawyers rich, and usually leaves the indie industry competitive only by the graces of a monopolistic capitalist body hoping to hold up straw man examples.