Hacker News Reader

HNHacker News

Top New Best Ask Show Jobs

Comment by snvzz | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

snvzz·

>Copyleft.

Why even bother with the extra "protection". It can be re-made by AI as easily.

Just go all the way, MIT or BSD. Maximize reusability and adoption.

View on HN

If you’re going to go all the way, make it public domain.

Isn't AI output already public domain?

AFAIK the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on it, and lower decisions haven’t only been made on contentment that’s solely ai generated.

If I can copyright the outputs of a code generator when I feed it my own inputs, then believe there is a similar line for LLM output.

AIUI there's no "public domain license". Permissive licenses like MIT are as close as it gets.

And the disclaimer of liability is kind of important.

"Zero-Clause BSD" is a bit closer to public domain than MIT if you want that. It's essentially only the disclaimer of liability. It omits the requirement to include any notices with the software.

https://opensource.org/license/0bsd

I like 0BSD, except the name.

The proliferation of BSD licenses dilutes the meaning of "bsd license". There's only one MIT license, so there's no confusion.

> It can be re-made by AI as easily.

Because that's not actually true yet, and may not be for a while

For source coude to source code rewrites (which would be the case here when we talk about license laundering), AI is leagues ahead compared to binary to source code rewrites.

If "it can be re-made by AI as easily" how MIT is supposed to help with adoption?

I know who you are.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com