So can you write GPL content using Claude? MIT? Because if this condition applies to the output, I don't see how it's compatible with FOSS.
Can you never tell anybody and just slap a license on it? Sure.
The issue here is not the license, but that you violate their ToS (if that is valid and enforceable is a different question of course). But if you publish the LLM output on github, and someone else takes it to train their LLM, and you did not actively encourage or help them, it's fine.
Compiler output isn't copyrightable? Is a compiler human?
Note that this is different from Gemeinfreiheit, where a copyrighted work essentially becomes public domain 70 years after the death of its creator.
but you can't copyright the output anyways. which either makes the restriction on training void or, it means the owners of the model own the copyright, and they only transfer some of the ownership to you. is there such an ownership transfer statement? i haven't seen one yet.
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software *without restriction*, [...]
That sentence seems to be in a blurry line between outright “ownership” and licensing.
This type of explanation leans towards the reality being you don’t own the outputs from Claude.
This kind of an explanation is like trying to be half pregnant.
I don't see them as having a leg to stand on with this in court; they can only cut off your access for egregious violations.