The GNU Compiler Collection will reject copyright-significant contributions derived from LLM output, with limited exceptions for trivial changes and test cases.
I have non FOSS projects that my company writes / sells (I’ve written these for over 20 years, but only owned them for 3, and opening the existing source is complicated as it’s tangled deeply with non OSS projects).
I don’t allow LLM generated code in our products either, since I have to assume that most of training was done on public repos, and there’s no way to know what licenses existed on that code (in addition to all of the other valid arguments to not use that shit).
IMO proprietary code has this same risk.
I have non FOSS projects that my company writes / sells (I’ve written these for over 20 years, but only owned them for 3, and opening the existing source is complicated as it’s tangled deeply with non OSS projects).
I don’t allow LLM generated code in our products either, since I have to assume that most of training was done on public repos, and there’s no way to know what licenses existed on that code (in addition to all of the other valid arguments to not use that shit).