[grahamlee]

It's clear that we're entering a new era of copyright _expectations_ (whether we get new _legislation_ is different), but for now realise this: the people like me who like copyleft can do this too. We can take software we like, point an agent at it, and tell it to make a new version with the AGPL3.0-or-later badge on the front.

[anonymous_sorry]

But the LLM contributions would likely be ruled public domain, so AGPL may not be enforceable on these.

[armchairhacker]

The point of GPL is to restrict distribution. If there’s already an MIT version, it’s useless.

[enriquto]

> The point of GPL is to restrict distribution.

no, it isn't. The point of the GPL is to grant users of the software four basic freedoms (run, study, modify and redistribute). There's no restriction to distribution per se, other than disallowing the removal of these freedoms to other users.

[grahamlee]

but the point of an EULA is to restrict distribution, so AGPL3 can help there.