[kam]

> Being in the public domain is not a license; rather, it means the material is not copyrighted and no license is needed. Practically speaking, though, if a work is in the public domain, it might as well have an all-permissive non-copyleft free software license. Public domain material is compatible with the GNU GPL.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#PublicDomain

[Joel_Mckay]

Yes, if it is clearly labeled as such, than GPL/LGPL licenced works may be included in such products. However, this relationship cannot make such works GPL without violating copyright, and doesn't magically become yours to re-license isomorphic plagiarized code from LLM.

For example, one may use NASA public domain photos as you wish, but cannot register copyright under another license you find convenient to sue people. Also, if that public domain photo includes the Nutella trademark, it doesn't protect you from getting sued for violating Ferrero trademarks/patents/copyrights in your own use-case.

Very different than slapping a new label on something you never owned. =3

[cxr]

> this relationship cannot make such works GPL without violating copyright

By definition, for content in the public domain, there's no copyright to be violated and no rightsholder with any recognizable/enforceable claim to IP to bring a suit. There's no IP at all.

[Joel_Mckay]

One can't license something they never owned to other users. GPL is fundamentally a contaminating license, and LLM output can't magically become GPL/LGPL.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20260414-the-monkey-sel...

https://www.peta.org/news/monkey-selfie-case-animal-rights-f...

Indeed, people also failed to give Monkeys the right to sue for copyright enforcement. Folks seem really keen on piracy "with extra steps" these days. =3

[cxr]

There's no such thing as piracy of the public domain. You're either hopelessly ill-suited to grapple with this topic or you're a troll, so I won't comment further.

If you're actually sincere in your beliefs, then take the money you regularly spend on hiring those specialized IP lawyers you mentioned and get one who will provide a second opinion and provide a detailed explanation of why what you're saying here is nonsense.

[Joel_Mckay]

You were provided with the context to educate yourself about what "uncopyrightable" means, and indeed most LLM output is >20% nonsense.

Data theft of service or piracy from the web and "AI" users content are used in the model training sets, and when codified the statistical saliency is significant if popular content is present.

For example, when an LLM does a vector search, there is a high probability of pirated content bleed-though and isomorphic plagiarism in the high dimensional vector space results. Thus, often when you coincidentally type in "name a cartoon mouse", there is a higher probability Disney "Micky Mouse" will pop out in the output rather than "Mighty Mouse". Note Trademarks never expire if the fees are paid, and Disney can still technically sue anyone that messes with their mouse.

LLM are useful for context search, but can't function properly without constantly stealing from actual humans. Thus, will often violate copyright, trademark, and patents. In a commercial context it is legally irrelevant how the output has misappropriated the IP.

This channel offers several simplified explanations of the work being done with models, and Anthropic posts detailed research papers on its website.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDdKiQNw80c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx4Tpsk_fnM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAcwtV_bFp4

I would recommend this channels "AI" project demo on the PDP-11:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUE3FSIk46g

Also, a well known case of "AI" output infringement leading to legal peril:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhgYMH6n004

One may believe whatever they like, and have a glorious day. =3

[cxr]

> One may believe whatever they like

Indeed.