Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Jim Jones (greatbigtable@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 13-Mar-2026 21:10:11 JST Jim Jones

   • Christine Lemmer-Webber
   • pixl_xip

   @pixl_xip @cwebber Accepting AI generated code does make me wonder if the Supreme Court ruling stating that AI generated content not being copyrightable might also lead to breaking license protections on code that use other licenses?

   • Embed this notice
     Christine Lemmer-Webber (cwebber@social.coop)'s status on Friday, 13-Mar-2026 21:10:10 JST Christine Lemmer-Webber

     in reply to

     • pixl_xip

     @GreatBigTable @pixl_xip It means AIgen stuff is in the public domain, so I don't think that's a problem from US case law. There are other problems with relying on that ruling. The US Supreme Court did not rule, it punted and decided *not to rule*. There is a difference.

   • Embed this notice
     Christine Lemmer-Webber (cwebber@social.coop)'s status on Saturday, 14-Mar-2026 01:13:30 JST Christine Lemmer-Webber

     in reply to

     • Michelle Hughes
     • pixl_xip

     @MegaMichelle @GreatBigTable @pixl_xip It can be incorporated into a copyleft codebase though. *Assuming* that it is indeed not subject to copyright everywhere, which we currently do not know.

   • Embed this notice
     Michelle Hughes (megamichelle@a2mi.social)'s status on Saturday, 14-Mar-2026 01:13:31 JST Michelle Hughes

     in reply to

     • Christine Lemmer-Webber
     • pixl_xip

     @cwebber @GreatBigTable @pixl_xip

     If AIgen stuff is public domain, that's not a problem for, like, MIT licensed stuff. But stuff that can't be copyrighted can't be copylefted either.