We can already have different licenses for compiled binaries vs the source. Also the output of ML seems to belong to whoever pressed the generate button atm.
Not really. The reason software can be copyrighted at all is because the actual code (and resulting object code) is creative. Courts have named this threshold the "Structure, sequence and organization" of the work. ML models don't follow any creative SSO the way actual code does.
> Also the output of ML seems to belong to whoever pressed the generate button atm.
The output, it seems to me, is uncopyrightable. Copyright only cares about who provides the creativity for the work at issue, not who put in the effort to make it happen. You may own the copyright to your prompt, but the result is generated entirely by the AI and thus lacks human autorship.
So far the rulings in the US, at least, do not support this.
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/02/us-co...
In this case, it was images generated via Midjourney and not the output of an LLM, but my layman's understanding of the result here would be equally applicable to LLM output. Effectively, the copyright office does not consider putting in a prompt enough for there to be "human authorship" of the work. In this specific case, that resulted on the images in the comic being considered uncopyrightable. The broader comic, in the organization of the images, the plot and dialogue, etc., still enjoys copyright protection. But in the US, I could just directly take the images in the comic that Midjourney produced and use them for another purpose without violating copyright.