[bayindirh]

The code on Stack Overflow is already licensed with Creative Commons, plus people put their code there with the intent of being shared and used.

There are GPL projects which provide people their livelihoods, because they get grants to develop that code with a GPL license. Ingesting the same code to a model sans it’s license not only infringes on the license, but allows this code to seep to places where it shouldn’t (by design), and puts this man’s livelihood in jeopardy.

Companies frowned upon GPL for years because of its liability, and now they can feast over this code with these models.

Same is for source available repositories. These companies put their code out for eyes only, not for reproduction and introduction to other code bases. These systems also infringe on these licenses, and attacking to the business models of these companies.

I’m not a copyright stickler. I just respect people and their choices they made with their code.

P.S.: I can share the tweets of that researcher if you want.

[nequo]

> The code on Stack Overflow is already licensed with Creative Commons

It is CC-BY-SA so it requires attribution (+ share alike).[1] That is the hard part with code written by LLMs.

[1] https://stackoverflow.com/help/licensing

[bayindirh]

Considering all the code I write is GPL licensed and I always write a comment on top of SO inspired code blocks with their respective URLs, I don't think I'm doing something wrong.

Update: SA 4.0 accepts GPLv3 as compatible, and I use GPLv3 exclusively. I'm on clear.

LLMs neither know provenance nor licenses about the things they generate, you're right. I think that part of the problem is ignored not just because it's hard, but it's convenient to ignore, too.