| ▲ | simoncion 14 minutes ago | |||||||||||||
> It's important to remember that the purpose of the license is to allow the copyright owner to exercise their rights in a manner they deem fit. Just as it's important to remember that the purpose of regulations like copyright and patents are to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. We're not locked in to a suicide pact with what the Founding Fathers decided back in the late 1700s. Congress can decide that all LLM-generated code is automatically covered by -say- the GPLv3, even if no one holds the copyright to it. If the absence of a particular person to hold the copyright twists your knickers, you could go a bit further and -say- decide that the people of the United States collectively hold the copyright to all LLM-generated code that's generated by US people or entities, and that relicensing of a particular piece of LLM-generated code must be agreed to by every US citizen that was alive when that code was created. | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Joker_vD 6 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||
> you could go a bit further and -say- decide that the people of the United States collectively hold the copyright Was going to comment something similar; we do have concepts of "dominium eminens", and "escheated property", and "public domain", and many other similar ideas. If the people (through their representatives) decide on a certain property regime, it absolutely can be implemented even if it's different from the status quo. | ||||||||||||||
| ▲ | wiremine 11 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||
> even if no one company or person owns it. Maybe, but I don't think there's any legal president for that, is there? Much of existing law is based on centuries of private property rights. I don't see any government undoing that... or at least, not quickly. | ||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||