←back to thread

The fate of "small" open source

(nolanlawson.com)
295 points todsacerdoti | 7 comments | 16 Nov 25 19:21 UTC | HN request time: 0.279s | source | bottom
1. smcameron ◴[16 Nov 25 21:10 UTC] No.45948420[source]▶
In the U.S., anything machine generated is uncopyrightable.

Why would you put uncopyrightable code into your codebase?

replies(5): >>45948436 #>>45948456 #>>45948488 #>>45948661 #>>45949455 #
2. gpm ◴[16 Nov 25 21:14 UTC] No.45948436[source]▶
Why wouldn't you? Your codebase (if you're a business) exists to make you money, people being able to copy some unknown portions of it without further license if they somehow legally get their hands on a copy of it seems entirely irrelevant.

PS. I think this is much less clear and much less settled law than you are suggesting.

3. siliconpotato ◴[16 Nov 25 21:17 UTC] No.45948456[source]▶
Even worse...unmaintained code. Only the human-written one has a maintainer. The other one plagiariased by AI is instant legacy code
replies(1): >>45948771 #
4. ebiester ◴[16 Nov 25 21:20 UTC] No.45948488[source]▶
It's more nuanced. If I even have a few lines I can prove are mine, those parts are copywritable in the same way Pride and Prejudice is public domain but pride and prejudice and zombies is copyrighted.
5. hdgvhicv ◴[16 Nov 25 21:40 UTC] No.45948661[source]▶
Autocomplete has been around for decades
6. exasperaited ◴[16 Nov 25 21:54 UTC] No.45948771[source]▶
> The other one plagiariased by AI is instant legacy code

I have used this "instant legacy code" concept before. It's absolutely true, IMO. But people really, really, really hate hearing it.

7. ranger_danger ◴[16 Nov 25 23:32 UTC] No.45949455[source]▶
I think if you dig a little deeper you will find that the answer is not so black and white.