Do developers not see the irony of publishing AI generated code with a LICENSE?
at least this one does:
> Postscriptum: Yes, I did slap an Apache 2 license on it. Is that even valid when there's barely a human in the loop? A fascinating question but not one I'm not eager to figure out myself. It is however certainly something we'll all have to confront sooner or later.
aberoham•7mo ago
The irony is even deeper than it appears. According to current US copyright doctrine, if Claude genuinely did all the work with minimal human creative input, the Salt Bae dash of ASL2.0 is essentially decorative - you can't license rights that don't exist.
The research shows the US Copyright Office hasn't caught up with `claude` code: they claim that prompting alone doesn't create authorship, regardless of complexity. Without "substantial" human modification and creative control over the final expression, the code lands in public domain by default. Not that it matters here, but anyone could theoretically use Ronacher's library while ignoring the Apache 2 terms entirely.
What makes this fascinating is that Ronacher knows this ("Is that even valid when there's barely a human in the loop?") but published anyway. It's a perfect microcosm of our current predicament - we're all slapping licenses on potentially unenforceable code because the alternative is.. what exactly?
the_mitsuhiko•7mo ago
> What makes this fascinating is that Ronacher knows this ("Is that even valid when there's barely a human in the loop?") but published anyway.
That has very pragmatic reasons. People should be able to use this library, in my jurisdiction I cannot place things in the public domain. So there are two outcomes: the Apache 2 license is valid and you can use it, or it was impossible to copyright it in the first place and it's in the public domain. Either way you are free to use it.
dbushell•7mo ago
at least this one does:
> Postscriptum: Yes, I did slap an Apache 2 license on it. Is that even valid when there's barely a human in the loop? A fascinating question but not one I'm not eager to figure out myself. It is however certainly something we'll all have to confront sooner or later.
aberoham•7mo ago
The research shows the US Copyright Office hasn't caught up with `claude` code: they claim that prompting alone doesn't create authorship, regardless of complexity. Without "substantial" human modification and creative control over the final expression, the code lands in public domain by default. Not that it matters here, but anyone could theoretically use Ronacher's library while ignoring the Apache 2 terms entirely.
What makes this fascinating is that Ronacher knows this ("Is that even valid when there's barely a human in the loop?") but published anyway. It's a perfect microcosm of our current predicament - we're all slapping licenses on potentially unenforceable code because the alternative is.. what exactly?
the_mitsuhiko•7mo ago
That has very pragmatic reasons. People should be able to use this library, in my jurisdiction I cannot place things in the public domain. So there are two outcomes: the Apache 2 license is valid and you can use it, or it was impossible to copyright it in the first place and it's in the public domain. Either way you are free to use it.
I'm not sure what else I can really do here.