[dminor]

Another tangent that I didn't see in the thread is that the Supreme Court just confirmed a ruling that LLM created art isn't copyrightable since the author must be human for copyright to apply.

If the new code was generated entirely by an LLM, can it be licensed at all? Or is it automatically in the public domain?

[gpm]

The US supreme court declined to hear a challenge to the claim that if you explicitly disclaim any human input to make a point then the art isn't copyrightable in the US. The copyrightability of "actually I had some design input" is still up in the air in the US, and copyrightability in general is still up in the air in probably the entire rest of the world as well as every court in the US outside of the DC circuit (because the supreme court declining to hear a case does not constitute an endorsement of the lower courts ruling or create precedent).

There's absolutely nothing stopping you granting a license to public domain work... granting a license is just waiving rights that the author might have to sue for copyright infringement under certain circumstances...

Personally I'd be unwilling to use this work without the license, because I would not be confident that it was public domain.

[Hamuko]

It would be in the public domain. Wouldn't really matter all that much if the end goal was to get it included in the Python standard library, but the whole "Copyright (c) 2024 Dan Blanchard" in the license file would just be BS.

The big question is whether or not is it a derivative work of an LGPL project. If it is, then it's just an outright copyright violation.