The assumption here is that the people who maintain something in a painstaking manner did not intend people to take it and do whatever they want with it in accordance with its license?
Where and when? In cases where LLM coding assistants reproduce copyleft code in someone's work assignment? The responsibility in those would be on the user, not on AI.
I’m not sure whether this is implemented or not since I don’t use generative AI for coding.
As an aside, I do believe that LLM trainers are ignoring and violating many licenses, but open-source software is not a clear example of a violation.
This was a different argument. And there is no contradiction to separate LLMs and people.
> As an aside, I do believe that LLM trainers are ignoring and violating many licenses, but open-source software is not a clear example of a violation.
How?
Copyright protects only arbitrarily non-trivial parts of the original being reproduced, but that means that you have to be careful with learning from copyrighted material. Programming books will have direct clauses allowing snippet reuse, but not for teaching purposes.
Even if they did, if someone memorized copywritten code and then typed it back out that would still be a copywrite violation
Don't a number of open source licenses notably involve restrictions?
The current implementation has recently become obsolete.
Just like many cultural rules, they keep growing in complexity until they reach a phase change where they become ignored because they have become too complicated.