Hello,

On Wed, Oct 08, 2025 at 10:37:53AM +0200, Christian Couder wrote:

On Sat, Oct 4, 2025 at 12:20 AM brian m. carlson
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

I remember the SCO situation with Linux and how it really created a lot
of uncertainty with Linux because SCO created FUD around Linux licensing
and how that led to the DCO being created.  I am aware of the fact that
many open source contributors are very unhappy that their code has been
used to train LLMs without retaining credits and copyright notices or
honouring the license terms[2].

I don't think it's very relevant for your position on this. On the
contrary, if LLMs have been trained mostly with open source code, then
if they produce copyrighted output, that output is more likely to be
compatible with the GPL. It has even been suggested (and discussed in
this thread) that some AIs should be trained only with open source
material (for example MIT licensed material?) so that we could stop
worrying about including it. If that happens, there would be no reason
to outright ban AI generated content, right?

even MIT license requires attribution. As most current day LLMs fail to
provide that their output is legally dubious even when trained on fairly
permissively licensed code.

Thanks

Michal