👀 … https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2026/apr/15/eternal-november-generative-ai-llm/ …my colleague Denver Gingerich writes: newcomers' extensive reliance on LLM-backed generative AI is comparable to the Eternal September onslaught to USENET in 1993.
-
@bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana I say "good outcome", and I'm not saying it's an outcome I want, because "what I want" is pretty complicated here. I'm saying, it's the only one where there is the possibility of legal output from these tools that can safely be incorporated into FOSS projects *at all* that is *equitable* for both FOSS and proprietary situations.
And yup, unfortunately, that would mean copyright-laundering of FOSS codebases through LLMs would be possible to strip copyleft.
It would also mean the same for proprietary codebases.
Frankly I think it would kind of rule if we stabbed copyright in the gut that badly, but there's so much vested interest from various copyright holding corporations, I don't think we're likely to get that. Do you?
@cwebber @bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana how do you launder proprietary codebases if the source isn't available? i just see this as 2 negatives since it would incentivize trade secrets
-
@LordCaramac @bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana If you are talking about my personal wishes, I would agree. Personally, I perceive of FOSS as a *reaction to* allowing copyright and other intellectual restrictions laws to apply to software.
This puts me at odds with some other copyleft advocates. I see copyleft as useful because it "turns the teeth of the machine against itself". If you have copyright, then great, we will use it to have a way to force the commons to stay open.
But it would be better to have no copyright at all, and if we could give it up, I would give it up.
But it's a far-fetched dream that it could happen. Maybe it will. I am not so sure. If it truly is possible to "copyright launder" any work through an LLM, we'd be as close to it as we ever could be.
But again, whatever scenario, in my view, has to be equitable. If it's possible to do that to GPL'ed software, it's only just to be possible to do it to any proprietary software, including reverse engineering binaries.
@cwebber @LordCaramac @bkuhn @richardfontana Sadly it will be years before we have an answer re copyright and we can't wait for that. Outlining usage in the meantime is the best we can do, in case we need to do something with that later.
We know proprietary software companies are using these tools extensively, so this is in effect a mutually assured destruction situation. While we wait, we should make sure that we are pushing freedom on all other axes, since they won't do that part.
-
@cwebber @LordCaramac @bkuhn @richardfontana Sadly it will be years before we have an answer re copyright and we can't wait for that. Outlining usage in the meantime is the best we can do, in case we need to do something with that later.
We know proprietary software companies are using these tools extensively, so this is in effect a mutually assured destruction situation. While we wait, we should make sure that we are pushing freedom on all other axes, since they won't do that part.
I agree with @ossguy in particular because if *we* are copylefting our code (even if assisted by #LLM-backed gen-#AI), we won't face a copyleft claim later.
Furthermore, it is highly unlikely these LLMs are (a) trained on proprietary software, and (b) any proprietary software company that so-trained would later claim infringement.
#Microsoft has all but admitted they refuse to train Copilot on their own code anyway.
-
@bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana Now here is a counter-argument: how do people attribute Wikipedia? They generally just attribute Wikipedia! And people seem to be mostly fine with this.
It feels fine, when you were a contributor to the Wikipedia project.
It feels a lot less fine when you are a contributor to a specific project, to have everything just sucked up into "the generic LLM". Claude did it! Claude did it all by itself.
@cwebber @bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana Giving a link to a Wikipedia page lets you look up the version history with every single contributor from the first byte of the article. You don’t have to list 10,000 names to satisfy CC BY, you just have to provide a link to a page that does. An LLM doesn’t and cannot do that.
-
@cwebber@social.coop @LordCaramac@discordian.social @bkuhn@copyleft.org @ossguy@fedi.copyleft.org @richardfontana@mastodon.social In a world without copyright (assuming no other changes), nothing would prevent people from withholding source code and attempting to restrict people’s freedom by technical means (DRM). On the other hand, it would also be entirely legal to reverse engineer everything and bypass the DRM.
Copyright should be removed, but DRM and providing binaries without source code should also be made illegal.
<small>Also why is your post language set to de?</small>
@noisytoot @ossguy @bkuhn @richardfontana @cwebber because I always forget to check the language in the Android app, and it defaults to the system language
-
@noisytoot @LordCaramac @ossguy @bkuhn @richardfontana I agree with you, and also have no idea why my post was set to DE.
@cwebber @noisytoot @ossguy @bkuhn @richardfontana Mine are often set to De because that's my system language, and I usually forget to check the language in the Android app
-
I agree with @ossguy in particular because if *we* are copylefting our code (even if assisted by #LLM-backed gen-#AI), we won't face a copyleft claim later.
Furthermore, it is highly unlikely these LLMs are (a) trained on proprietary software, and (b) any proprietary software company that so-trained would later claim infringement.
#Microsoft has all but admitted they refuse to train Copilot on their own code anyway.
@bkuhn @ossguy @LordCaramac @richardfontana
- There are plenty of FOSS projects we care about which are not under copyleft. What terms should they consider received code under? Should SDL now consider all LLM based output under the GPL? The AGPL? Which? Do you expect such a project to switch its license to copyleft now?
- Microsoft's proprietary code may not be, but plenty of proprietary code is available under extremely non-FOSS and restrictive licenses which are within datasets we are getting contributions from *today*
- The mutually assured destruction "safe option" isn't that things are under copyleft for proprietary companies though, that's still a losing scenario for them. So that doesn't help the case for copyleft, only accepting that LLM output under the public domain is (which we don't know) -
@bkuhn @ossguy @LordCaramac @richardfontana
- There are plenty of FOSS projects we care about which are not under copyleft. What terms should they consider received code under? Should SDL now consider all LLM based output under the GPL? The AGPL? Which? Do you expect such a project to switch its license to copyleft now?
- Microsoft's proprietary code may not be, but plenty of proprietary code is available under extremely non-FOSS and restrictive licenses which are within datasets we are getting contributions from *today*
- The mutually assured destruction "safe option" isn't that things are under copyleft for proprietary companies though, that's still a losing scenario for them. So that doesn't help the case for copyleft, only accepting that LLM output under the public domain is (which we don't know)@bkuhn @ossguy @LordCaramac @richardfontana It's somewhat of an aside, but my point regarding regarding Microsoft's codebase is not that Windows' code is in the inputs (this is true), my point was about a more interesting test for licence laundering is to launder a *leaked* proprietary codebase. If it's possible to copyright launder GPL'ed code, the equitable thing is that we should be able to copyright launder proprietary code. But again, that's somewhat of a tangent from the main points.
-
@cwebber I think maybe you missed https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2026/mar/04/scotus-deny-cert-dc-circuit-thaler-appeal-llm-ai/ where #SFC analyzed that situation?
Also, follow @ai_cases & see the *firehose* of litigation on this & remember the “Work Based on the Program” issue under GPLv2 has still never been litigated directly but lots of cases about 100% proprietary software have bolstered GPL's strength.Big Content has legal battles with Big Tech on 100s of fronts rn. Yes, we're adrift on their sea, but the situation is not as dire as you imagine.
-
@cwebber @bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana how do you launder proprietary codebases if the source isn't available? i just see this as 2 negatives since it would incentivize trade secrets
@trwnh @bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana Plenty of Microsoft code has been released under "shared source" licenses and also leaks
-
@bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana So let me summarize:
- Without knowing the legal status of accepting LLM contributions, we're potentially polluting our codebases with stuff that we are going to have a HELL of a time cleaning up later
- The idea of a copyleft-only LLM is a joke and we should not rely on it
- We really only have two realistic scenarios: either FOSS projects cannot accept LLM based contributions legally from an international perspective, or everything is effectively in the public domain as outputted from these machines, but at least in the latter scenario we get to weaken copyright for everyone.That's leaving out a lot of other considerations about LLMs and the ethics of using them, which I think most of the other replies were focused on, I largely focused on the copyright implications aspects in this subthread. Because yes, I agree, it can be important to focus a conversation.
But we can't ignore this right now.
We're putting FOSS codebases at risk.
@cwebber @bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana Worse IMHO is that we're putting FOSS as a movement at risk if we deskill everyone to the point where you either pay money to have code generated for you, or there is no code.
-
-
@cwebber @bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana Worse IMHO is that we're putting FOSS as a movement at risk if we deskill everyone to the point where you either pay money to have code generated for you, or there is no code.
@jens @bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana This is indeed a serious risk, though tangential to this subthread. But it's a concern I also have.
-
@trwnh @bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana Plenty of Microsoft code has been released under "shared source" licenses and also leaks
@cwebber @bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana sure, but my point is this would happen less often
-
@jens @bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana This is indeed a serious risk, though tangential to this subthread. But it's a concern I also have.
@cwebber @bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana Fully tangential, agreed.
-
@bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana So let me summarize:
- Without knowing the legal status of accepting LLM contributions, we're potentially polluting our codebases with stuff that we are going to have a HELL of a time cleaning up later
- The idea of a copyleft-only LLM is a joke and we should not rely on it
- We really only have two realistic scenarios: either FOSS projects cannot accept LLM based contributions legally from an international perspective, or everything is effectively in the public domain as outputted from these machines, but at least in the latter scenario we get to weaken copyright for everyone.That's leaving out a lot of other considerations about LLMs and the ethics of using them, which I think most of the other replies were focused on, I largely focused on the copyright implications aspects in this subthread. Because yes, I agree, it can be important to focus a conversation.
But we can't ignore this right now.
We're putting FOSS codebases at risk.
-
@richardfontana @bkuhn @ossguy Glad to hear we agree there!
-
@bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana So let me summarize:
- Without knowing the legal status of accepting LLM contributions, we're potentially polluting our codebases with stuff that we are going to have a HELL of a time cleaning up later
- The idea of a copyleft-only LLM is a joke and we should not rely on it
- We really only have two realistic scenarios: either FOSS projects cannot accept LLM based contributions legally from an international perspective, or everything is effectively in the public domain as outputted from these machines, but at least in the latter scenario we get to weaken copyright for everyone.That's leaving out a lot of other considerations about LLMs and the ethics of using them, which I think most of the other replies were focused on, I largely focused on the copyright implications aspects in this subthread. Because yes, I agree, it can be important to focus a conversation.
But we can't ignore this right now.
We're putting FOSS codebases at risk.
@cwebber @bkuhn @ossguy @richardfontana
Based on my following of current legal cases, I think it's entirely possible that in a year or two we'll suddenly be rolling large OSS codebases back to 2023. And won't that be fun!
-
However, it's not actually the laundering angle I am concerned with here entirely, it's whether we're turning FOSS codebases into potential legal toxic waste dumps that we will have a hell of a time cleaning up later.
The previous Conservancy post, which @bkuhn linked upthread, indicates that Conservancy does indeed consider the matter unsettled.
Current LLMs wouldn't "default to copyleft", since they also include all-rights-reserved mixed in there. If the result of output of these systems is a slurry of inputs which carry their licensing somehow, their default licensing output situation is one of a hazard.
I note that @bkuhn and @ossguy seem to be hinting at hoping a "copyleft based LLM" with all-copyleft output it a winning scenario. I'm going to state plainly: I believe that's an impossible outcome.
Are you concerned that the LLMs generate nontrivial verbatim excerpts of copyrighted works?
Or that there is a hidden "intellectual property" in the deep patterns that they use?
Say, when an LLM was trained on a file I made with an interesting loop structure, and it emits code with a similar loop structure, even if the variable names, problem domain, details, or programming language differ.
What if a court says I can demand royalties for my "IP"?
-
@richardfontana @bkuhn @ossguy Glad to hear we agree there!
