not_IO@lemmy.blahaj.zone to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 14 hours agoIs Windows FOSS now?lemmy.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square180fedilinkarrow-up1921arrow-down139file-text
arrow-up1882arrow-down1imageIs Windows FOSS now?lemmy.blahaj.zonenot_IO@lemmy.blahaj.zone to Programmer Humor@programming.devEnglish · 14 hours agomessage-square180fedilinkfile-text
https://zomglol.wtf/@jamie/116059523957674208 https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/LSB/PDF/LSB10922/LSB10922.8.pdf
minus-squaresudoer777@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·edit-22 hours agohttps://reuse.software/faq/#uncopyrightable The REUSE specification recommends claiming copyright even if it’s machine generated. Is this incorrect information? EDIT: Also, how is copyrighting code from an AI different than copyrighting an output from a compiler?
minus-squareBuddahriffic@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up4·2 hours agoI believe it was a product of the earlier conflict between copyright owners and AIs on the training side. The compromise was that they could train on copyright data but lose any copyright protections on the output of the AI.
https://reuse.software/faq/#uncopyrightable
The REUSE specification recommends claiming copyright even if it’s machine generated. Is this incorrect information?
EDIT: Also, how is copyrighting code from an AI different than copyrighting an output from a compiler?
I believe it was a product of the earlier conflict between copyright owners and AIs on the training side. The compromise was that they could train on copyright data but lose any copyright protections on the output of the AI.