Do it in a way that a human can understand but AI fails. I remember my days and you guys are my mvp helping me figure shit out.

If there was an actual civil suit you'd probably be able to subpoena people for that information, and the standard is only more likely than not. I have no idea if the general idea is bullshit, though.

IANAL

By that same logic LLMs themselves (by now some AI bro had to vibe code something there)

I'm guessing LLMs are still really really bad at that kind of programming. The packaging of the LLM, sure.

& their trained datapoints

I'm guessing for legal purposes the weights were generated by the human-made training algorithm. I have no idea if that's copyrightable under US law. The standard approach seems to be to keep them a trade secret and pretend there's no espionage, though.

btw this is happening actuallt AI trained on copyrighted material and it's repeating similar or sometimes verbatim copies but license-free :D

I do not give Facebook or any entities associated with Facebook permission to use my pictures, information, messages, or posts, both past and future.

The Windows FOSS part, sure, but unenforceable copyright seems quite possible, but probably not court-tested. I mean, AI basically ignored copyright to train in the first place, and there is precedent for animals not getting copyright for taking pictures.

Didn't sources leak multiple times

It's just the code that's not under copyright, so if someone leaked it you could legally copy and distribute any parts which are AI generated but it wouldn't invalidate copyright on the official binaries.

If all the code were AI generated (or enough of it to be able to fill in the blanks), you might be able to make a case that it's legal to build and distribute binaries, but why would you bother distributing that slop?

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.

Agentic IDEs like Cursor track usage and how much of the code is LLM vs human generated.

Which probably means it tracks every single keystroke inside it. Which rightfully looks like a privacy and/or corporate code ownership nightmare.

But hey at least our corporate overlords are happy to see the trend go up. The fact that we tech people were all very unsubtly threatened into forced agentic IDEs usage despite vocal concerns about code quality drop, productivity losses and increasing our dependence on US tech (especially openly nazi tech) says it all.

I think expert software developers can quickly address AI code

Yeah, a lot of copyright law in the US is extremely forgiving towards creators making mistakes. For example, you can only file for damages after you register the copyright, but you can register after the damages. So like if I made a book, someone stole it and starting selling copies, I could register for a copyright afterwards. Which honestly is for the best. Everything you make inherently has copyright. This comment, once I click send, will be copyrighted. It would just senselessly create extra work for the government and small creators if everything needed to be registered to get the protections.

Edit: As an example of this, this is why many websites in their terms of use have something like "you give us the right to display your work" because, in some sense, they don't have the right to do that unless you give them the right. Because you have a copyright on it. Displaying work over the web is a form of distribution.

Nah, laws being like they are the copyright probably belongs to whatever cartel owns the bot you used to perpetrate the code, because fuck human people, that's why, laws are for corporations' benefit, not for yours.

The law is very clear that non-human generated content cannot hold copyright.

That monkey that took a picture of itself is a famous example.

But yes, the OP is missing some context. If a human was involved, say in editing the code, then that edited code can be subject to copyright. The unedited code likely cannot.

Human written code cannot be stripped of copyright protection regardless of how much AI garbage you shove in.

Still, all of this is meaningless until a few court cases happen.

People will believe anything if the icon on the tweet looks authoritative and the grammar is sound.

OP is obviously ignorant of how much tooling has already helped write boiler plate code.

Besides AI code is actually one of the things that’s harder to detect, compared to prose.

And all that said, AI is doing an amazing job writing a lot of the boilerplate TDD tests etc. To pretend otherwise is to ignore facts.

AI can actually write great code, but it needs an incredibly amount of tests wrapped around and a strict architecture that it’s forced to stick to. Yes, it’s far too happy sprinkling magic constants and repeat code, so it needs a considerable amount of support to clean that up … but it’s still vastly faster to write good code with an AI held on a short leash than it is to write good code by hand.

Computer output cannot be copyrighted, don't focus on it being "AI". It's not quite so simple, there's some nuance about how much human input is required. We'll likely see something about that at some point in court. The frustrating thing is that a lot of this boils down to just speculation until it goes to court.

i made a script years ago that algorithmically generates python code from user input. Is it now considered AI-generated too?

No, because you created the generation algorithm. Any code it generates is yours.

Guess you can't really prove that, unless you leave comments like "generated by Claude" in it with timestamp and whatnot 😁 Or one can prove that you are unable to get to that result yourself.

So nonsense, yes.

Uh, yes, that's what they call a generative ai

if you can't enforce copyright, how do you stop others from giving it away for free and editing it, making it foss..?

To the CEO, "helps people" means "spreadsheet line goes up".

The same way you tell if it's copy & pasted from Stackoverflow or some other search result!

1- Code it in fortran 77.

2- DO NOT use DO or WHILE or any other non-compliant f77 code. Instead, use GOTO

3- makes the spaghetti so spaghetty that it curls in itself.

4- Make sure to use COMMON blocks everyhere! Not only for efficiency purposes but to also holds all that spaghetti in a tiny Schrondinger cat's box.

5- last step is to do all that to write "Hello World!"

I think anyone forced to use Windows 11 in 2026 already knows that. Although there the term "run" is stretched to the limit.

It's just unsettled law, and the link is basically an opinion piece. But guess who wins major legal battles like this - yep, the big corps. There's only one way this is going to go for AI generated code

It is true that AI work (and anything derived from it that isn't significantly transformative) is public domain. That said, the copyright of code that is a mix of AI and human is much more legally grey.

In other work, where it can be more separated, individual elements may have different copyright. For example, a comic was made using AI generated images. It was ruled that all the images were thus public domain. Despite that, the text and the layout of the comic was human-made and so the copyright to that was owned by the author. Code, obviously can't be so easily divided up, and it will be much harder to define what is transformative or not. As such, its a legal grey area that will probably depend on a case-by-case basis.

The US copyright office confirms this. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-2-Copyrightability-Report.pdf

Even if it were, it would be for you or I, but not for Microsoft, apple, Google, or Amazon.

If the AI generated code is recognisably close to the code the AI has been trained with, the copyright belongs to the creator of that code.

The part that is untrue is the "public domain" part. If you generate code then you don't own it because the actual human work that went into creating it was done by the owner of the AI Model and whatever they trained on.

Probably wouldn't work, at this point I doubt they're capable of feeling shame anymore, if they ever were.

Haven't we been exposed to enough horror?

does the public really want more garbage than they already has?

How may Windows engineers have you met?

99% of the ones I met and worked with were very, very good.

Don’t confused maintaining backwards compatibility and managing real concerns of large customers with bad engineering.

What a vibe

It already is, vibe coders cannot hold copyright on AI-generated code

Does anyone know of any place to keep up with what people are doing with the XP leak? I vaguely remember some 4chan threads where people worked to get it compiling properly, and I think someone ported USB 3.0 support, but I lost track after that.

Yes I think most of it technically should due to the nature of GPL code.

Why would it be a specific license?

The claim being made here isn’t wild conjecture. It’s based on a legal analysis done by the congressional research service. That’s a rather authoritative source that Congress itself uses to understand the implications of many things - amongst which are the implications and impacts of the laws it codifies.

What is your supposition based on, such that it’s more authoritative than that?

This take is weird, because none of the companies that do inference claim ownership of the generated content in their contracts for one, and because anyone can download open source models and generate code without entering into any ToS, for two.