Heh, it's like all those YouTube videos where someone uploads a song and the uploader puts "No copyright infringement intended" in the text description, sometimes with five or six exclamation marks just to really make sure they avoid the takedown.
Often they drop the "infringement" and just have "no copyright intended" because they don't actually know what copyright is beyond it being a word in the emails they get from youtube.
What are you talking about? GPT4 would not do that kind of mistake. I must say, reading comments like this, that GPT4 actually comes across as more intelligent than many hn commenters
This is a common 'copyright infringement NOT intended ALL rights belong to X' type of widespread misunderstanding of how copyright actually works, and it's why I'm convinced that if most people understood copyright they would think it was absurd.
Well to be fair YT has made it confusing because some of the time it is. Some artists allow fan uploads like that and just collect the ad revenue off it.
So really in the modern era no copyright intended really is a message to the artist/label saying it's a fan video, they're not trying to impersonate the official one and asking for it to stay. The uploader might not know that that's what they're really asking but credit to YT for making this arrangement work to preserve some of the site's original culture.
Unlike other commenters, I think the author of the article meant to say you can't hope to license contributions built ontop leaked code, obviously, so it'll always be a gray area that one could call "public domain".