Here is the proposed addition for the ToU that @Gusted and I agreed on post-assembly for the upcoming membership vote. 🙏
The discussion for this proposal is available for Codeberg e. V. members in the forum: https://forum.codeberg.org/d/139-resolutions-for-assembly-on-codeberg-taking-a-stand-a...
Is it though? There is no law that says that, so its just an interpretation of someone. I argue Ai generated code CAN be public domain if it does not contain any licensed code. Therefore we cannot assume the code being public domain without checking.
Edit: since apparently no one actually follows this link, this is a link to a series of quotes that come directly from the United States Copyright Office that specifically apply to the question of whether AI generated code can be copyrighted. This is not an opinion piece, it is a series of direct quotes, which I share below.
In the Office’s view, it is well-established that copyright can protect only material that is the product of human creativity. Most fundamentally, the term “author,” which is used in both the Constitution and the Copyright Act, excludes non-humans.
– II. The Human Authorship Requirement
If a work’s traditional elements of authorship were produced by a machine, the work lacks human authorship and the Office will not register it. For example, when an AI technology receives solely a prompt from a human and produces complex written, visual, or musical works in response, the “traditional elements of authorship” are determined and executed by the technology—not the human user. Based on the Office’s understanding of the generative AI technologies currently available, users do not exercise ultimate creative control over how such systems interpret prompts and generate material.
– III. The Office’s Application of the Human Authorship Requirement
Some technologies allow users to provide iterative “feedback” by providing additional prompts to the machine. For example, the user may instruct the AI to revise the generated text to mention a topic or emphasize a particular point. While such instructions may give a user greater influence over the output, the AI technology is what determines how to implement those additional instructions.
This is just an interpretation of one organization, not an universal law.
Ai is trained on different licensed code. It does not automatically become public domain just because the Ai processes it. There is also no guarantee that the output is free of licensed code that already exists.
It is the interpretation of the Judicial Branch of the United States government and the United States Copyright Office, the best authority on copyright law in the United States.
But yes, much like every single other law in existence, it’s not universal. (I mean, unless we’re also talking about the laws of physics.)
And yes, if the AI generated code is a copy of copyrighted code, then it would still be copyrighted, but that’s an even worse problem for Codeberg than it being public domain.
It is the interpretation of the Judicial Branch of the United States government and the United States Copyright Office, the best authority on copyright law in the United States.
Codeberg is based in Germany where German copyright law applies, and German copyright law is quite different from USA copyright law.
They still need to consider all copyright laws, and something being considered public domain in the US is a pretty big deal with regard to open source licensing. For example, if code is in the public domain, and is “released” under the AGPL, I don’t actually have to follow the terms of the AGPL when I use it.
The quoted laws do not say that generated code is automatically public domain, that is an interpretation of the law by some organization (here ScieActive). The laws just say, that a person using a prompt cannot take ownership and copyright of the generated code. It does not state it becomes public domain for everyone. Besides that, this is only in the US, not universal. And its not even tested in court yet. Its like saying in Brazil (or the EU in example) exist a law that does not allow Ai, therefore its the law for everyone. This is not universal.
The quotes are not laws, and those quotes are from the Copyright Office’s official statement on AI generated material. Please, just click the link at the bottom of my earlier comment. Here, I’ll even link it again:
If something cannot be copyrighted, it is in the public domain.
It doesn’t really matter if it’s not international law. If I don’t want to follow your open source license requirements, and your project is public domain in the US, I’ll just copy it in the US, and you can’t sue me.
Ok, I’ve editing my earlier comment to explain what I’m linking there, since it seems that neither you nor anyone else bothered to click that link.
Considering AI generated code is public domain, so not exactly open source licensed, this is a good move.
Is it though? There is no law that says that, so its just an interpretation of someone. I argue Ai generated code CAN be public domain if it does not contain any licensed code. Therefore we cannot assume the code being public domain without checking.
It is.
https://sciactive.com/human-contribution-policy/#More-Information
Edit: since apparently no one actually follows this link, this is a link to a series of quotes that come directly from the United States Copyright Office that specifically apply to the question of whether AI generated code can be copyrighted. This is not an opinion piece, it is a series of direct quotes, which I share below.
(All from this document from the US Copyright Office: https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf)
This is just an interpretation of one organization, not an universal law.
Ai is trained on different licensed code. It does not automatically become public domain just because the Ai processes it. There is also no guarantee that the output is free of licensed code that already exists.
It is the interpretation of the Judicial Branch of the United States government and the United States Copyright Office, the best authority on copyright law in the United States.
But yes, much like every single other law in existence, it’s not universal. (I mean, unless we’re also talking about the laws of physics.)
And yes, if the AI generated code is a copy of copyrighted code, then it would still be copyrighted, but that’s an even worse problem for Codeberg than it being public domain.
Codeberg is based in Germany where German copyright law applies, and German copyright law is quite different from USA copyright law.
They still need to consider all copyright laws, and something being considered public domain in the US is a pretty big deal with regard to open source licensing. For example, if code is in the public domain, and is “released” under the AGPL, I don’t actually have to follow the terms of the AGPL when I use it.
The quoted laws do not say that generated code is automatically public domain, that is an interpretation of the law by some organization (here ScieActive). The laws just say, that a person using a prompt cannot take ownership and copyright of the generated code. It does not state it becomes public domain for everyone. Besides that, this is only in the US, not universal. And its not even tested in court yet. Its like saying in Brazil (or the EU in example) exist a law that does not allow Ai, therefore its the law for everyone. This is not universal.
The quotes are not laws, and those quotes are from the Copyright Office’s official statement on AI generated material. Please, just click the link at the bottom of my earlier comment. Here, I’ll even link it again:
https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf
If something cannot be copyrighted, it is in the public domain.
It doesn’t really matter if it’s not international law. If I don’t want to follow your open source license requirements, and your project is public domain in the US, I’ll just copy it in the US, and you can’t sue me.
Ok, I’ve editing my earlier comment to explain what I’m linking there, since it seems that neither you nor anyone else bothered to click that link.