[bigiain]

Perhaps consider putting it in public domain instead of using an "open source" license?

There's a decent legal ethical argument that LLM output isn't copyrightable, and for me a "one shot vibe code" definitely _isn't_ "your creative work", so the copyright that open source licenses rely on probably doesn't exist there.

I wonder if a new category of "non copyrighted shared source code" needs to exist for people who use Gan AUI to create genuinely useful software which would ne a net positive to society if shared, but that doesn't risk murkying the waters and undermining the copyright basis that licenses like GPL and Apache and BSD and MIT rely on?

[Retr0id]

I don't believe in copyright, personally.

[bigiain]

Whether you believe that copyright _should_ exist is quite different from whether it _actually_ exists and whether there are consequences due to the existence of copyright.

All "open source" licenses rely on copyright. If copyright did not exist, GPL and BSD and MIT (and all the other software license options, open and commercial) would be unenforceable.

(I'm less convinced that you seem to be about whether there arte any good reasons for copyright. I believe real "creative people" like authors and musicians and artists and film makers _should_ have a legally enforceable monopoly to control use of and to generate income from their creative work. That shouldn't be "Micky Mouse" effectively eternal control, but there should in my opinion be some legally protected "ownership" that a creator has where they can prevent other people copying/recreating/misusing/profiting from their creation. Whether this should ever have applied to softwares something for a more nuances discussion t6hat a website comment section...)

[farnsworthfusor]

If LLM output isn't copyrightable then it's already public domain, even if you say it isn't - if this is true you can just ignore the wishes of the person who thinks they're the copyright holder.

[marcus_holmes]

this. The whole licensing of software stands on copyright. If the content is already in the public domain because it was generated by an LLM (copyright only protects human works) then it can't be licensed.

However, there's no compunction to publish the generated code, even if it's public domain.

We end up in a strange nega-OSS world where all code can be used by anyone for any reason, if you can get your hands on it.

[PeterStuer]

If you believe this, then this was always the case. LLM's only made it cheaper and more accesible.

[marcus_holmes]

Sorry I don't understand, what am I believing that has always been the case?