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
Licenses determine the outcome of copyright lawsuits. If there's no copyright lawsuit, nobody looks at the license.

Licenses determine whether a copyright lawsuit is likely to happen. Most entities won't sue you if they expect to lose. But they are not the only deciding factor. Some entities never sue, which means you don't have to follow their licenses.

Sometimes they don't sue because they don't think they can prove you infringed copyright, even if you did. Even if AI is found to be copyright infringement in general, that won't mean every output is a copyright infringement of every input. Writing C code wouldn't be copyright infringement of Harry Potter. The entity suing you would still have to prove that you infringed.