zlacker

You're completely right. My premise is not extending the (court tested, honored) license I attach to my code.

What I say with the GPL license is clear:

If you derive anything from this code base, you're agreeing and obliged to carry this license to the target code base (The logical unit in this case is a function in most cases).

So the case is clear. AI is a derivation engine. What you obtain is a derivation of my GPL licensed code. Carry the license, or don't use that snippet, or in AI's case, do not emit GPL derived code for non-GPL code bases.

This is all within the accepted ethics & law. Moreover, it's court tested too.

>>bayind+(OP)
> you're agreeing and obliged to carry

People are not agreeing though.

They are not agreeing, because there is a perfectly reasonable ethical and legal principle called fair use, which society has determined allows people to engage in limited use of other people's IP, no matter what the license says.

> Carry the license, or don't use

Or, instead of that, people could reasonably use fair use, and ignore the license, as fair use exists for many good legal and ethical reasons.

And no, you do not get to extend that out, to doing anything you want to do, just because there is a reasonable exception called fair use.

> do not emit GPL derived code for non-GPL code bases

Or, actually, yes do this. This is allowed because of the reasonable ethical and moral principle called fair use, which allows people to ignore your license.

>>stale2+U1
I will agree to disagree on your overly broad definition of fair-use which consists of ingesting a whole code base and using its significant parts for another code base with or without derivation while disregarding the attached license to its whole and/or parts.

Thanks for the discussion, and have a nice day.

I may not further comment on this thread from this point.