obviously some "business people" try to steal open source code and try to take possession of it in a "legal" way: by running it through ai and "recreating" it without all the opensource stuff like GPL and such attached. so they think they can sell it, license it however they want without this GPL commons impediment.as @Cory Doctorow puts it in this article:This is the risk that Nolan and his partner are trying to awaken the free/open source community to: that our commons is about to be raided by selfish monsters who serve as gut-flora for the immortal colony organisms we call "limited liability corporations," who will steal everything we've built and destroy the social contract we live by.gut flora and immortal colony organisms ... i seriously doubt that any german politician would ever understand this meaning ... @Cory Doctorow even shows a way out, one that the colony organisms most probably didn't think of: no copyright for ai generated stuff, neither books, nor pictures, nor music nor code.the principle that copyright is strictly reserved for human creativity isn't remotely controversial in legal circles. This is just how copyright works.Which means that the "be evil" version of Malus's business model has a fatal flaw. While the code that Malus produces is indeed "legally distinct" with "no attribution" and "no copyleft," it's not true that there are "no problems." That's because Malus's code doesn't have "corporate-friendly licensing." Far from it: Malus's code has no licensing, because it is born in the public domain and cannot be copyrighted.this means:If you give me code that Malus produced, you can't stop me from doing anything I want with it. I can sell it. I can give it away. I can make a competing product that reproduces all of your code and sell it at a 99% discount.let just hope doctorow is right with his assessment.#computer #OpenSource #GPL #raub #diebstahl #software #programme #Lizenz RE: https://mamot.fr/@pluralistic/116454017121705714
