zlacker

>>mefeng+(OP)
A factor that people have not considered is that the copyright status of AI generated text is not settled law and precedent or new law may retroactively change the copyright status of a whole project.

Maybe a bit unlikely, but still an issue no one is really considering.

There has been a single ruling (I think) that AI generated code is uncopyrightable. There has been at least one affirmative fair use ruling. Both of these are from the lower courts. I'm still of the opinion that generative AI is not fair use because its clearly substitutive.

>>nutjob+Jb
This only matters if you get sued for copyright violation, though.

>>direwo+hc
No? Licenses still apply even if you _don't_ get sued?

>>christ+Zf
Do they? Isn’t the application of the license its enforcement?

It’s illegal to commit fraud or murder, but if you do it and suffer no consequences (perhaps you even get pardoned by your president), does it matter that it was illegal? Laws are as strong as their enforcement.

For a less grim and more explicit example, Apple has a policy on the iOS App Store that apps may not use notifications to advertise. Yet it happens all the time, especially from big players like Uber. Apple themselves have done it too. So if you’re a bad actor and disrespectful to your users, does it matter that the rule exists?