> So as of today, the Copyright system does not have a way for the output of a non-human produced set of files to contain the grant of permissions which the OpenBSD project needs to perform combination and redistribution.

This seems extremely confused. The copyright system does not have a way to grant these permissions because the material is not covered under copyright! You can distribute it at will, not due to any sort of legal grant but simply because you have the ability and the law says nothing to stop you.

▲

plorg 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This all relies, as the article points out, on everyone looking directly at code that both looks like and works like the only extant codebase for EXT4 and nonetheless concluding that in fact the computer conjured it from the aether. If I wrote a program that zipped up the Linux kernel source, unzipped it, and grepped -v for comments it would not then be magically transformed into unattributable public domain software.

	▲	FeepingCreature 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Under the premise advanced in the quote, copyright is not being violated because there is none. Thus, the quote makes no sense as stated. It may be that, additionally, copyright is in fact being violated (I don't believe it myself), but if so that's a separate argument.

▲

jagged-chisel 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Eh … the argument will likely be things created by Thing at the behest of Author is owned by the Author. It’ll take a few cases going through the courts, or an Act of Congress to solidify this stuff.

▲

wongarsu 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Just like we settled on photographers havin copyright on the works created by their camera. The same arguments seem to apply

The US Copyright Office has published a piece that argues otherwise, but a) unless they pass regulation their opinion doesn't really matter, and b) there is way too much money resting on the assumption code can be copyrighted despite AI involvement.

▲

fragmede 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It's not settled. The monkey selfie copyright dispute ruled that a monkey that pressed the button to take a selfie, does not and cannot open the copyright to that photo, and neither does the photographer who's camera it was. How that extends to AI generated code is for the courts to decide, but there are some parallels to that case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_selfie_copyright_disput...

	▲	wongarsu 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		But with the monkey there are two levels of separation from the artist: the human makes the creative decision to hand the camera to a monkey, who presses the trigger, and the camera makes the picture. Compared to the single layer of separation of a photographer choosing framing and camera parameters, pressing the trigger and the camera taking the picture. Or the zero levels of separation when the artist paints the picture. A programmer writing code would be like the painter, and the programmer writing a prompt for Claude looks a lot like the photographer. The prompt is the creative work that makes it copyrightable, just like the artistic choices of the photographer make the photo copyrightable You could argue that the prompt is more like a technical description than a creative work. But then the same should probably be true of the code itself, and consequently copyright should not apply to code at all The copyright office's argument is that the AI is more like a freelancer than like a machine like a camera. Which you might equate to the monkey, who's also a bit freelancer like. But I have my doubts that holds up in court. Monkeys are a lot more sentient than AIs
	▲	KallDrexx 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		The copyright office is pretty clear on this if you read: https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intell.... There is case law surrounding the fact that just because you commission a work to another entity doesn't give you co-authorship, the entity doing the work and making creative decisions is the entity that gets copyright. In order for you to have co-authorship of the commissioned work you have to be involved and pretty much giving instruction level detail to the real author. The opinion shows many cases that its not the case with how LLM prompts work. The monkey selfie case is relevant also because since it also solidifies that non-persons cannot claim copyright, that means the LLM cannot claim copyright, and therefore it does not have copyright that can be passed onto the LLM operator.
	▲	michaelmrose 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		The law is whatever it needs to be to satisfy monied interests with the degree of acceptable of adaptation being a function of the unity of those interests and the political ascendancy of those in favor. Overwhelmingly this is in favor of treating ai as a tool like Photoshop. Even those against AI disagree on different matters and will overwhelmingly want a cut not a different interpretation.
	▲	charcircuit 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		This filesystem driver was made by a human using AI, not a monkey.

▲

HappySweeney 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Haven't there already been a few cases, each of which found that mechanically-produced works are not copywritable?

	▲	senko 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		no

▲

themafia 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Just because you can distribute something doesn't mean you aren't violating someone else's copyright. You cannot assume that just because a language model popped out some code for you that it is clear of any other claims.