Woah! AGPL? That's interesting. I think Postgres has shown an open source SQL server didn't need a copy-left license to develop sustainably, so I'm not entirely aure about that, but I do like the license in general.

▲

Ameo 3 hours ago | parent [-]

When the software consists entirely of ~$1000 worth of Claude credits and ~40 hours of developer time prompting and curating it, literally what does it matter what license the resulting 100k LoC artifact is provided under?

Copyleft and the whole software licensing ecosystem only matter when producing that software actually requires serious human effort and dedication.

	▲	ncruces 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Also can the code even be copyrighted? For my machine translation of SQLite to Go I added this to the README as to licencing: Most of the code here is machine translated using wasm2go. As such, the original authors retain copyright and the original licenses remain in effect. Everything else is licensed under MIT-0. The translator (wasm2go) has a licence chosen by, and a copyright notice from, me. Makes no sense for the translated code.
	▲	marcus_holmes an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Copyleft and the whole software licensing ecosystem are only applicable when producing software that actually required human effort. Fixed that for you. Code generated by an LLM is not copyrightable (because copyright only protects human effort), so the codebase is automatically public domain and cannot be licensed at all. They could theoretically copyright the prompts that they used, but as that's not part of the output, and the output doesn't deterministically arise from those prompts, they'd struggle to use that to back a copyright claim.