• iglou@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    18 days ago

    That sounds like complete bullshit to me. Even if the logic is sound, which I seriously doubt, if you use someone’s code and you claim their license isn’t valid because some part of the codebase is AI generated, I’m pretty sure you’ll have to prove that. Good luck.

    • Kushan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      18 days ago

      I work for a large enterprise firm, our corporate lawyer has told be about this exact scenario so I’m inclined to believe it’s real.

      That being said, for established projects it won’t be that hard to prove the non-AI bit because you have a long commit history that predates the tooling.

      Even if you were to assume that all commits after a certain date were AI generated, the OP is slightly off in their attestation that any AI code suddenly makes the whole thing public domain, it would only be if a majority of the codebase was AI coded (and provably so).

      So yes all the vibe coded shite is a lost cause, but stuff like Windows isn’t in any danger.

        • Kushan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          18 days ago

          I think that’s actually quite sensible, our lawyer wasn’t flagging some clear cut legal certainty, he was flagging risk.

          Risk can be mitigated, even if the chance of it panning out is slim.

          • iglou@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            18 days ago

            A bit besides the point, but it is pretty crazy to me that we’re moving towards a world where if you create by yourself, you’re outcompeted, but if you use AI like everyone else, you own nothing.