>my repos have commits authored by Claude, Dependabot, GitHub Advanced Security Bot, Copilot, etc.

Unless you're using an enterprise license that indemnifies your liabilities, you're almost certainly breaking copyright law and your packages are unusable by any serious company as a dependency. Even permissive OSS licenses like MIT don't take effect since they're predicated on the author actually holding a valid copyright (which you don't if AI agents have committed to your repo, as affirmed by USCO).

We'll almost certainly have a situation where if an open-source repo has direct AI agent commits in its history, it will be just as untouchable for companies as GPL repos.

▲

Grokify 3 days ago | parent [-]

Given that Claude is attributed to 19M+ commits on GitHub, it will be interesting to see where this ends up. Specifically on copyright, it will be interesting to see if any DMCA takedown notices are filed, including popular projects such as OpenClaw, GSD, Gas Town, Vibium, and others.

More on the 19M+ commits here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47501348

▲

lelanthran 2 days ago | parent [-]

This argument sounds like "Well, it's too big to fail now, so it's legal for them. For all you smaller peons, it's still illegal".

	▲	Grokify 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		That's not the intention. The intention is: 1. The code generated should be available to use. Some languages are simple enough there is an obvious way to do it. Many companies have developer programs with staff producing code intended to be used in the form of open source SDKs, example code, and tutorials. 2. If on the off chance, there is code that shouldn't be there, people should use DMCA. Anthropic, GitHub, and others support this. 3. At the macro level, it's hard to know know where this is going, so we should look to bellwether apps with more attention for guidance.