Codeberg seems to ban vibecoded Projects; reason might be german copyright law

>It looks like Codeberg want only copyrighted material in their service, so it is reliable in the future that e.g. licenses must be followed (e.g. GPL), and copyright doesn’t suddenly get declared as being of the model owner, and it isn’t a copy of something else.
That is a cautious reasonable position - in early days of LLM coding (3 years ago!) indemnity from model companies was a major issue globally because of the lack of clarity of the law around this. The US specifically has settled on it being (effectively?) public domain. But I don’t think that is fully settled, and it certainly isn’t settled in international copyright law.
The goal of the vague “mostly” in the Codeberg change is to ensure there is enough human input to the code they host, to be reasonably sure under German copyright law it is copyright of the person sharing it.

edit: link to poll that caused it (might be down due to high traffic) https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/org/pulls/1253#issuecomment-19820434

edit 1: i dont defend/oppose this move, i just find it interesting

  • Err(()).unwrap()@lemmy.worldEnglish
    35·
    13 hours ago

    The US specifically has settled on it being (effectively?) public domain.

    The US Copyright Office has declared that it would not grant copyright protection to AI-generated material due to a lack of human authorship, but it is very far from being codified by law, nor does it say anything about the ownership of the material.

    • eleijeep@piefed.socialEnglish
      131·
      12 hours ago

      This is still a problem for OSS licensing, since in order to license a work you need to be the copyright holder.

      This might mean that OSS projects find it even more difficult to assert their licenses against violators in court, since they would need to prove that the part of the code that was copied was not AI output.

      Banning the output of AI tools in OSS codebases is a sensible move for any project that actually cares about enforcing the license that their code is released under.

    • poVoq@slrpnk.netEnglish
      31·
      12 hours ago

      Indeed, this ruling says nothing about something being a derivative work, all it says is that AI generated works can not create new copyright claims, which is totally sensible and non-controversial.

      • JensSpahnpasta@feddit.orgEnglish
        3·
        11 hours ago

        The bigger problem is that AI tools have ingested a lot of copyrighted and FOSS code and totally will use that code in your projects. So even if AI output can’t be copyrighted, you are still on the hook if your AI copies copyrighted code into your own project. People will notice if your project just changed the variable names

        • poVoq@slrpnk.netEnglish
          21·
          11 hours ago

          Yes, that is what the term “derivative work” referrs to.