The reason for NetBSD rejecting any use of AI is the concern that a future legal case will rule that the output of LLMs trained on GPL code is itself subject to the GPL due to the viral clause in the licence.
The reason for NetBSD rejecting any use of AI is the concern that a future legal case will rule that the output of LLMs trained on GPL code is itself subject to the GPL due to the viral clause in the licence.
God that would be amazing. How incredible would it be if basically all software was free?
It would be amazing because while unemployed you’d have all the time in the world to play with that software
The chances american courts would find for this is basically zero. Maybe in other markets....
... or commercial software vendors would roll back a couple of years in their VCS and start again from that point.
Sure, but they would still be required to open the source code of the last version they distributed before that roll back, which could then be forked.
Generally, courts have levied fines for copyright infringement rather than forcing ooen sourcing of code. The times when code has been open sourced are usually settlements to avoid a fine.
It's hard to convince a court to order specific performance, and this is not the sort of case where it's at all likely to happen.
I assume the reason was more generally non-permissive licensing and legal issues? Specifically seeing only copyleft as the problem sounds unreasonably sociopathic, so I assume you picked that out as just one prominent example. (That, or I should take care to steer clear of NetBSD.)