[Dylan16807]

There's a difference between "no license, all rights reserved" and "no license, public domain". Up until recently, you could assume that not having a license meant the former. But treating the latter as the same would just be silly.

As far as I'm concerned, public domain counts as "an appropriate open source license".

[lmm]

> As far as I'm concerned, public domain counts as "an appropriate open source license".

For material whose author is known and has explicitly placed it in the public domain, sure. For code that fell off the back of a truck, not so much.

[Dylan16807]

I'm of course assuming the legal status quo holds, where code properly generated by LLM is also explicitly public domain. No shadiness involved.

(There's always a risk of an LLM copying something verbatim by accident, but if the designers are doing their job that chance gets low enough to be acceptable. Human code has that risk too after all. (And for situations that aren't an accident, with the human intentionally using snippets to draw out training text, then if they submit that code in a patch it's just a human violating copyright with extra steps.))

[lmm]

> code properly generated by LLM is also explicitly public domain

Where? I hadn't heard of any such ruling.

[Dylan16807]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_and_co...

This page has a pretty good overview.

> Both the federal and circuit courts in the District of Columbia have upheld the Copyright Office's refusal to register copyrights for works generated solely by machines, establishing that machine ownership would conflict with heritable property rights as establish by the Copyright Act of 1975.[16] As of March 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States has denied hearing challenges to the Copyright Office's decision.[17]