1255

Is Windows FOSS now? (lemmy.blahaj.zone)

submitted 3 months ago by not_IO to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

150 comments fedilink hide all child comments

https://zomglol.wtf/@jamie/116059523957674208

https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB10922/LSB10922.8.pdf

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] lung@lemmy.world 228 points 3 months ago

It's just unsettled law, and the link is basically an opinion piece. But guess who wins major legal battles like this - yep, the big corps. There's only one way this is going to go for AI generated code

[-] Droechai@piefed.blahaj.zone 27 points 3 months ago

Worst case is that its the owner of the agent that recieves the copyright, so all vibe coded stuff outside local ai will be claimed by the big corpos

[-] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 23 points 3 months ago

I actually think that's the best case because it would kill enterprise adoption of AI overnight. All the corps with in-house AI keep using and pushing it, but every small to medium business that isn't running AI locally will throw it out like yesterday's trash. OpenAI's stock price will soar and then plummet.

[-] Grimy@lemmy.world 29 points 3 months ago

The big AI companies would just come out with a business subscription that explicitly gives you copyright.

[-] Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 10 points 3 months ago

Damn

[-] ieGod@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 months ago

Unlikely since, as you say, it would deter business. OpenAI already assigns rights of output to the end user according to their licensing and terms.

[-] marlowe221@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

No attempt to argue with you, personally is intended here. But your comment raises another question that I’m not sure the law has answered yet.

What rights does OpenAI have in the output of ChatGPT in the first place? Because if the answer is “Not much” then their transfer of rights to the output to the user doesn’t necessarily mean much.

After all, OpenAI can only transfer rights that they have. If they don’t have any to begin with… 🤷‍♂️

[-] ieGod@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yep, totally fair question, and one that's being tested legally on many fronts. Rulings are generally siding with AI companies on the training side (using copyrighted works to train models is fair use) but there aren't many decisions yet about output. The next few years will be interesting.